Let’s be clear on the much-awaited Asian deal that Yahoo and its Asian partners have been working on: While it is certainly still moving forward, once signed, it will not actually officially close until next year.

Yes, that’s right — 2013!

Still, what everyone and his investor is waiting for is the splashy announcement of the agreement, which involves the Silicon Valley Internet giant, China’s Alibaba Group and SoftBank, a large shareholder in Yahoo Japan.

Yahoo leadership has been hoping that could happen before Feb. 24, an important date after which activist shareholder Daniel Loeb could begin to mount a proxy fight against the current board.

And while the definitive agreement — involving the sale of Yahoo’s 33 percent stake in Alibaba and 35 percent stake in Yahoo Japan — has been moving back and forth among the dealmakers, one source said its completion might take a little longer than that, perhaps even into mid-March.

“It is one of the most complicated cross-border transactions in a long time,” said one person close to the situation. “It’s three different languages, three time zones and three companies that have not always seen eye to eye.”

It’s not that the companies don’t have the top talent on the effort. For Yahoo, it is CFO Tim Morse (who most recently also warmed the CEO seat, until Scott Thompson’s recent appointment); for Alibaba, it’s CEO Jack Ma and CFO Joe Tsai; and, for SoftBank, it is top man Masa Son and his top man Ron Fisher.

To make things even more complex, at the same time as the negotiating is going on, the trio also has to pay mind to how the Internal Revenue Service in the U.S. is going to view the whole deal.

As you can see here from a Wall Street Journal chart, it’s a pretty complicated “cash-rich split-off” to avoid taxes.

While the IRS cannot take an application for a “private letter ruling” until it has an actual agreement in hand, and will not issue one on a hypothetical transaction, the agreement still must be crafted so it is most likely to pass muster.

And only then can anyone move on to the many billions of dollars that Yahoo will instruct Alibaba and SoftBank to pay or contribute in kind for the asset part of the arrangement.

As the Journal noted, in more clarity than I ever could: “A key part of satisfying tax-code requirements is that the company shedding its shares get assets, not just cash, in exchange for them. Cash can’t account for more than two-thirds of the transferred value, tax rules say. This restriction was adopted in 2005 to limit misuse of the provision.”

While Yahoo’s execs have met about the various possibilities, it is more considering now than anything else.

And although a lot of names have been bandied about — Weather Channel, WebMD, as well as Glam Media and even Digg — the more likely direction Yahoo will go in will be different, according to many sources.

First, said sources, the key criteria for the purchase will be to diversify revenue streams, a theme Thompson sounded in his first earnings report recently. That could mean more online commerce, perhaps, rather than advertising or media assets.

Second, said sources, international properties might be more valuable to Yahoo than owning more U.S.-based ones, which opens up a range of interesting possibilities.

This could even include some already held by Alibaba, for example, such as garnering a big stake in its publicly-traded Alibaba.com. Technically, via Alibaba, Yahoo already owns some of the e-commerce giant, but not directly. Another possibility is to get back the Yahoo China business, also now owned by Alibaba.

Third, U.S. companies that Yahoo might look at could be unusual and even bold. Two names brought up in recent internal meetings, for example, were Netflix (before its stock revived) and Yelp (which is prepping for an IPO, and which Yahoo once tried to buy already).

And if things were not already needlessly complex in fixing its Asia problem, expect a change in the Yahoo board composition, too, as early as this week.

As I previously reported, at least four directors are expected to move on. More to the point, there will also be replacements announced at the same time.

To stave off Loeb and even give him a perceptible win, sources said the company is considering announcing the changes sooner than later, with the hope that fresh new members will placate other shareholders.

Lastly, with Thompson starting to take the reins after a month there, I would also expect he’ll weigh in on some significant restructuring (his word, not mine!) at Yahoo soon enough, too.

Complicated? Sure is! Perplexing even? And how! But until Asian and board resolutions, the real work of fixing Yahoo can’t really begin.

According to sources close to the situation, new Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson is meeting with the two private equity firms that had made previous partial investment overtures to the Silicon Valley Internet company.

While those deals are now tabled, sources said that Thompson and the Yahoo board still wants to engage investors — Silver Lake and TPG Capital — in discussions about how to best turn around Yahoo.

Thus, sources said, Thompson was interested in meeting with the firms — as well as others involved, such as VC Marc Andreessen, who had been working with Silver Lake — in order to discuss their ideas and get up to speed on them.

And, of course, keep the discussions alive to see if there is any kind of different deal to be done in the future.

That’s after, of course, Yahoo completes its complex negotiations with its Asian partners — Alibaba Group and SoftBank — over selling off parts of its own stakes there.

While Yahoo’s success in resolving Asia is not assured, this transaction was a key part of proposals for a PIPE — Private Investment in Public Equity — deal that both Silver Lake and TPG had made.

But, after shareholders looked askance on such a deal due to price and other issues, Yahoo decided to negotiate on its own and picked a new CEO.

Still, in a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too move, the company leadership also did not want to close the door on the PE firms (and their money and expertise). completely.

That’s especially true, since the distinct possibility of a proxy fight from activist Yahoo investor Daniel Loeb is now hovering over the company’s neck.

Both Loeb and Yahoo are scrambling to prep for the potential battle. Loeb is trying to assemble a slate of alternate directors, and shoring up other major Yahoo shareholders as allies, while Yahoo is moving to shed some directors while also adding new ones.

Hence, the meetings with PE firms to keep the proverbial ball rolling, which presents at least the facade that the company is intent on turning the core parts of Yahoo around by any means possible.

Sources close to the PE firms remain dubious, with both feeling burned by the last process.

“I’m not sure anything will come of this, and the way Yahoo conducted the last talks was not encouraging,” said one source. “But it does not cost anything to keep listening.”

According to sources close to the situation, Yahoo has instituted a hiring freeze across the company and is considering a reduction in force in support units of the company.

While the details of any layoffs — which are expected to be small and selective for now — are still being worked out, sources said that the stricture not to fill hundreds of open positions is the first step toward significant cost-cutting initiatives across the Silicon Valley Internet giant, in the wake of what it expects to be another weak quarterly report next week and a looming proxy fight.

Yahoo reports its fourth quarter earnings Tuesday. While the company has managed to improve the results in the last part of the quarter, sources said they will still show continued weakness in its key businesses and consumer usage.

That’s as competitors such as Google and Facebook have been showing significant growth, especially in the display advertising market.

Thus, new Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson appears to be zeroing in on costs and managing for margins, said multiple sources, much as his predecessor Carol Bartz did at the start of her tenure.

But many think Yahoo needs even more drastic changes, including massive cuts in staff and also product arenas, to give the company new life.

That includes shifts in leadership at the top levels too. In a major move this week, co-founder Jerry Yang stepped down from the company’s board and all roles there. More directors are expected to leave soon, too.

That will likely come after negotiations to sell part of its lucrative stakes in both the Alibaba Group and Yahoo Japan are successfully completed.

While not a certainty, Yahoo’s board hopes that will happen sometime before activist shareholder Daniel Loeb initiates a proxy battle against the company in the coming month.

Sound complex?

It is, and also troubling to Yahoo’s long beleaguered rank and file, who have been worried about more layoffs.

The Yahoo troops have been under intense pressure and have suffered from ongoing attrition. Just yesterday, for example, Yahoo lost one of its top advertising execs, Seth Dallaire, to Amazon.

The company can ill afford such departures of key talent, even as it seeks to pare employee numbers in other parts of its business.

At the end of its last quarter, Yahoo reported that it had 13,700 staffers, down from 14,100 in the previous year.

Yahoo, of course, declined comment.

Yahoo co-founders David Filo and Jerry Yang

Yes, he jumped, even though being pushed was surely looming on the horizon ahead.

But the decision of Yahoo co-founder, former CEO and director Jerry Yang to leave Yahoo was indeed sudden, with the board meeting just this morning about the issue.

It was so sudden, in fact, that Yahoo’s key execs — including its communications arm — had only a few minutes heads-up to what is arguably one of the more momentous events in the history of the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

In fact, newly installed CEO Scott Thompson was in Los Angeles in a previously planned visit to meet his new staffers, said multiple sources, forcing him to participate in the board meeting from there.

As it turns out, according to numerous sources, Yang had had enough, and had finally realized that perhaps the many players in the ongoing Yahoo drama inside and outside the company had also had enough of him.

As I wrote last week about the possibility of Yang stepping down from the board, such a move of a founder from its board is unusual, although it was possible in this case:

“While Internet company founders usually stick on boards, it’s not a given, especially with all the turmoil at Yahoo, some of which is related to Yang.”

In fact, as the pressure has mounted on Yahoo to right its ever-listing ship, a lot of the rancor was being piled atop Yang, whether deserved or — in some cases — undeserved.

That’s because, even after the rough time he had as CEO of Yahoo, Yang had remained unusually active in its affairs, joining internal meetings and being part of discussions about its strategic alternatives.

And while he might protest that he was doing what was asked of him by the board, his status as the company founder made it hard to minimize his clout.

“It’s hard to ignore Jerry Yang,” said one exec. “He has an impact on everything, even if he thinks he does not.”

The recent negotiations with Yahoo’s Asian partners is a case in point. While board member Brad Smith and others have been a key part of the talks to sell off parts of its stakes there — which are critical to Yahoo to complete — execs at both China’s Alibaba Group and Japan’s SoftBank both pointed to a too-strong influence of Yang in the deal as a possible stumbling block.

Yang served on both the boards of Alibaba and SoftBank’s Yahoo Japan, so his interest would have been obvious. But sources involved in the talks would often blame him for their rocky nature and difficulty.

“Jerry just does not want to sell,” one said to me last week.

Maybe he didn’t or maybe he did, but one thing was clear: Yang had become a lightning rod for a lot of the trouble Yahoo has gotten into over the years.

That was true with major investors, who have been more loudly saying of late to its board that his continued presence was a problem. The most vocal, of course, was Yahoo’s activist shareholder Daniel Loeb, who has called for Yang’s ouster, and has been contemplating a proxy fight to make it so.

Loeb was out in Silicon Valley last week, talking to possible alternate board members, many of whom have been longtime colleagues and even friends of Yang, and took the meeting anyway.

Worse, perhaps, was the prospect that Yang has also been losing his most ardent fan base: Yahoo employees.

With all the mishegas over recent years, they had also begun to question his role as a leader in the company, many voting with their feet by leaving in droves.

With a new CEO in place, and the possible chance that its Asian problems were moving in the right direction, it had to have sunk in for Yang that it had finally become time to make peace with the present by abandoning his future at Yahoo.

Thus, he wanted to leave on his own terms, even if — in the end — the man who is most definitely one of the Internet’s most important pioneers did not have much of a choice.

If you thought things were going to quiet down with Yahoo now that it has installed new CEO Scott Thompson in place, think again!

That’s because of a very unusual — well, to be fair, unusual for most companies, but not for perpetually storm-tossed Yahoo — confluence of important events about to take place all at once over the next six weeks.

And, like a very dicey game of corporate Jenga, each has the ability to upend and impact the other significantly, either for the good or, well, for the bad.

Here are the four horsemen of the possible Yahapocalypse, all riding into town very soon:

Q4 Results: Yahoo will report its fourth quarter earnings on January 24th, after the markets close. While sources said the company has managed to turn around what was looking like a first-class disaster, it’s still not going to be a pretty picture when it comes to advertising growth, consumer engagement and other key metrics.

Simply put, Yahoo needs to show investors a fast-growing business. Instead, sources said the Q4 results will likely come in at the bottom of the expected range, which should be unimpressive, even though this has been business as usual at Yahoo for some time.

If Google and others have strong reports, of course, it will make the situation worse.

Along with goosing its ad business again, Yahoo needs to spur innovation and intro some cool new products in new arenas to make Silicon Valley and others perk up.

Proxy Fight?: Weak results will give a nice lift to potential efforts by activist investor Daniel Loeb of Third Point — a major Yahoo shareholder — to wage a proxy fight for control of the company. He’s already here in Silicon Valley this week searching for possible board members for an alternate slate of directors.

As I wrote earlier today, the earliest nominations for directors can be submitted is February 24. Loeb then has a month after that to submit a competing roster.

Worse for Yahoo, many of Yahoo’s major investors are mulling backing Loeb if he initiates a battle for control of the company.

There’s no doubt that Loeb is and means to be a thorn in Yahoo’s side — he already made a lot of noise about its consideration of partial investments from private equity firms, due to low share prices — until major changes take place at the company.

And by major, Loeb’s intent seems to be along these baseball lines: Throw the bums out!

Board in Flux: Speaking of the board, it’s not the pretty picture of solidarity as you might think.

Actually, no one in their right mind thinks that. This board is about as dysfunctional as they come. (It’s like that group on “American Horror Story,” minus the bald dwarf in the basement.)

Right now, several sources report, various factions are jockeying over which board members go and which stay. The Wall Street Journal reported last week on a formal search for new board members to replace outgoing ones, but it’s much more complex than just that.

While some departures seem most obvious — longtime board members Vyomesh Joshi, Arthur Kern and Gary Wilson — the really interesting part will be the possible exit of Chairman Roy Bostock.

While it now is more of a when rather than an if, many sources report, how it goes down is the key part of the move. And who will be the chairman then will be the big conundrum — either an internal candidate, such as David Kenny, or a fresh-eyed outsider.

Another question mark: Whether co-founder Jerry Yang could also move along off the board with Bostock. While Internet company founders usually stick on boards, it’s not a given, especially with all the turmoil at Yahoo, some of which is related to Yang.

For now, make no mistake, Bostock is still in charge of the board and Yang is the only real power behind that power, despite the recent influence of director Brad Smith.

But, with all the pressure by shareholders, some sources suggest that it might finally be time for some significant change at the board level, starting with the pair most associated with all its troubles.

Or, um, not.

If there is going to be any action at all, expect it before February 24th — when Loeb can start making real trouble.

Asian Solution: A lot of the above hinges on whether Bostock and Yang can deliver the promise of a deal with its long disgruntled Asian partners, Alibaba Group and SoftBank.

The trio is now engaged on negotiations about a tax-free deal, in which Yahoo would sell back some of its stakes in its Asian properties and get money and other operating assets in return.

While it’s good news that the talks are finally proceeding with some level of normal functionality, it’s still a complex situation and one with a lot of outstanding questions.

Most important: Which operating assets will be bought in the deal to hand over to Yahoo? And also, what will the valuations be?

Sources close to the situation said that the talks remain slow-going and frustrating — “The stop-and-go of all time,” joked one person involved. But they are moving forward, which is no small thing when it comes to these three.

That’s critical for Yahoo, which can ill afford to disappoint shareholders if no lucrative, cash-rich deal happens in Asia. And, it needs to happen before Loeb can act on a proxy fight too, since a successful end to its Asian issues will negate his momentum dramatically.

Oh Yeah, Running the Core Business Stuff: As usual, a full and fraught month for Yahoo and its directors, who have other things to do, I assume.

But not me and not new CEO Thompson. By the way, the former eBay exec will presumably be very busy doing some significant rejiggering of the core Yahoo business in the meantime.

Could that mean a new product direction for Yahoo, for example, around data? Could it mean a passel of new execs? Could it mean layoffs?

Or, could it mean Thompson will finally solve the ultimate sword-in-the-stone question: What is Yahoo?

And that, in the end, will be the real victory.

As I reported late last night, Yahoo said it had named PayPal President Scott Thompson as its new CEO. The exec is currently in charge of the large eBay online payments unit.

He’ll start next week, but there are staff conference calls today and also an all-hands meeting on Yahoo’s main Silicon Valley campus (meet at URLs, troops!) tomorrow.

Yahoo shares are down almost three percent on the news so far, as Wall Street has been hoping for a big sale of some sort and not another turnaround.

Yahoo will be holding a 7 am PT press conference about the move and presumably to swan around Thompson.

(Welcome, Scott! I hope you were informed — please do not listen to what co-founder Jerry Yang says on this important issue — that you are supposed to send all internal memos to me! Also, as one of my Twitter followers, Mike Dudas of Google just tweeted: “If Thompson leads companies as well as he grows a moustache, Yahoo made a great CEO choice!!” I concur.)

A Yahoo PR person confirmed the hire very cordially in a phone call early this morning and the Internet giant also put out a press release.

So did I, of a sort, last night. Given I am too tired to rewrite myself, here is what I had reported:

The company fired its last CEO, Carol Bartz, in September, and Yahoo has been run by the board and also by interim CEO Tim Morse, who had previously been its CFO.

After Bartz’s ouster, Yahoo said it was looking at a range of strategic options, including the possible sale of all or part of the company.

That was the focus at first, although Yahoo had simultaneously hired Heidrick & Struggles to look for a new CEO.

The company attracted two partial investment bids from private equity firms, Silver Lake and TPG Capital, but shareholders were unhappy with the low prices of these so-called PIPE — Private Investment in Public Equity — arrangements.

Yahoo then moved to try to strike a tax-advantaged deal with its long disgruntled Asian partners, China’s Alibaba Group and Japan’s SoftBank, to sell back parts of the large stakes it has long owned in Alibaba and Yahoo! Japan.

Those complex negotiations are still ongoing and look promising, which could yield Yahoo billions of dollars in capital to be given to investors, for stock buybacks or to invest in new initiatives.

Since then, the board — long considered one of the more cloddish in tech — has turned its attention to hiring a new CEO, in the hopes of trying once again to revive its flagging fortunes.

Thus, it began looking to hire someone with deep tech experience at a large public consumer Internet company in Silicon Valley.

That narrowed the field, with Yahoo looking at a range of choices with expertise in advertising, technology platforms and more.

There is a lot of that on the deep bench that eBay CEO John Donahoe has assembled at the online commerce giant, including Thompson.

Plus, he is a genuine Internet geek.

According to his eBay bio, Thompson became president of PayPal in early 2008, after serving as its CTO in charge of information technology, product development and architecture.

Before eBay, he worked at Inovant, a subsidiary of Visa formed to oversee global technology for the organization. He was also CIO of Barclays Global Investors and has worked at Coopers and Lybrand on information technology.

And here’s a tasty new wrinkle: Thompson recently “liked” Yahoo on his Facebook page, along with the decidedly more interesting Kickstarter and Splunk.

Again, Scott, thanks for the Facebook tip — I knew the social networking site could come in handy!

(Also, here is an interview I did with him post-announcement.)

And here is Yahoo’s official press release where Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock says nice stuff about Thompson:

YHOO_News_2012_1_4_General

According to sources close to the situation, Yahoo is poised to name a CEO, an announcement that could come as early as tomorrow.

Sources said the leading candidate likely to get the nod is a dark horse and someone who has not been named in previous reports (and not on my suggested lists!): PayPal President Scott Thompson, who runs eBay’s massive online payments unit.

While the situation could certainly change, the Yahoo board has definitely been moving aggressively of late to try to find a new leader for the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

The company fired its last CEO, Carol Bartz, in September; Yahoo has been run by the board and also by interim CEO Tim Morse, who had previously been its CFO.

After Bartz’s ouster, Yahoo said it was looking at a range of strategic options, including the possible sale of all or part of the company.

That was the focus at first, although Yahoo had simultaneously hired Heidrick & Struggles to look for a new CEO.

The company attracted two partial investment bids from private equity firms, Silver Lake and TPG Capital, but shareholders were unhappy with the low prices of these so-called PIPE — Private Investment in Public Equity — arrangements.

Yahoo then moved to try to strike a tax-advantaged deal with its long-disgruntled Asian partners, China’s Alibaba Group and Japan’s SoftBank, to sell back parts of the large stakes it has long owned in Alibaba and Yahoo! Japan.

Those complex negotiations are still ongoing and look promising, which could yield Yahoo billions of dollars in capital to be given to investors, for stock buybacks or to invest in new initiatives.

Since then, the board — long considered one of the more cloddish in tech — has turned its attention to hiring a new CEO, in the hopes of trying once again to revive its flagging fortunes.

Thus, it began looking to hire someone with deep tech experience at a large public consumer Internet company in Silicon Valley.

That narrowed the field, with Yahoo looking at a range of choices with expertise in advertising, technology platforms and more.

There is a lot of that on the deep bench that eBay CEO John Donahoe has assembled at the online commerce giant, including Thompson.

Plus, he is a genuine Internet geek.

According to his eBay bio, Thompson became president of PayPal in early 2008, after serving as its CTO in charge of information technology, product development and architecture.

Before eBay, he worked at Inovant, a subsidiary of Visa formed to oversee global technology for the organization. He was also CIO of Barclays Global Investors and has worked at Coopers and Lybrand on information technology.

And here’s a tasty new wrinkle: Thompson recently “liked” Yahoo on his Facebook page, along with the decidedly more interesting Kickstarter and Splunk.

(Dear Scott, Nice to meet you. And thanks for the tip! FYI, it’s a juicy giveaway like that which feeds my insatiable quest to find out All Things Yahoo!)

More to come soon, I expect.

Yahoo, as usual, never got back to me on my query, although the much more cordial people at eBay politely declined to comment.

It’s the typically newsless time around Christmas and New Year’s, but for once there has actually been a lot going on at Yahoo.

Last week, the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s typically moribund board decided to move ahead with negotiations to sell part of its stake in China’s Alibaba Group, as well as all of its shares in Yahoo Japan.

While that is still not a done deal, it adds clarity to the Yahoo mishegas, as current leaders there seek to turn around the company’s lagging fortunes.

Now, as Yahoo continues to contemplate a pair of partial investment bids by private equity firms Silver Lake and TPG Capital into 2012, more focus will be on the selection of a CEO candidate to take over, sources said.

While I have floated some names that have been contemplated — such as Hulu CEO Jason Kilar, Juniper CEO Kevin Johnson, former aQuantive and Microsoft exec Brian McAndrews, and board member David Kenny — I have collected some more that seem to be getting the once-over and are being mentioned internally as well as externally.

Sources said that the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee at Yahoo, which is run by independent director Patti Hart, has been looking for someone with definite public company experience, as well as expertise in large-scale management.

As to talent, candidates seem to be either good at running big platforms, or deeply knowledgeable about advertising and media as well as technology.

Another important criteria, said sources: Someone who is “collaborative” and nonconfrontational. As in, not like the former and very pugnacious CEO Carol Bartz, who was fired in September.

Thus, here’s another trio of candidates to consider, while we wait — and who knows how long that will be given that the Asian activity could have tired out for a bit this usually slow-moving board:

Chris Liddell: The former CFO of Microsoft is an interesting name that just popped up recently, and it makes some sense when you think about the possible mindset of the Yahoo board.

Liddell, who has a charming New Zealand accent, did a short stint, from January of 2010 to March of this year, as CFO at General Motors. Recently married to another former Microsoft exec, he has since been living in New York.

He apparently loves living in the Big Apple.

But when he left GM, Liddell made it clear he wanted to go for a top job next. He was among the candidates for a recent search for a CEO of Time Warner’s Time Inc. (an effort that was run by exec search firm Heidrick & Struggles, which is also conducting the Yahoo hunt).

Known as tough and decisive, he certainly is qualified to deal with complex financial situations, such as the one in which Yahoo now finds itself knee-deep. One knock: Little product or advertising experience.

Laura Desmond: While certainly a dark horse, Desmond has been queried by Heidrick, said several sources.

She is CEO of Starcom MediaVest Group, a subsidiary of Publicis, one of the largest media planning and buying agencies, making Desmond one of advertising’s most prominent players.

Well-known in Yahoo’s key market, she is considered a savvy and smart exec with a wry sense of humor.

I happen to particularly like one line from one of her bios:

“Ms. Desmond’s career has been driven by two caveats: Take intelligent risks and learn more from failure than from success.”

She could learn a lot at Yahoo. (I know, easy jab, but it works!)

David Rosenblatt: The former DoubleClick CEO, who went on to a big ad job at Google after it paid $3.2 billion for the company, is also a long shot, mostly by his own choosing.

The sharp exec is always on the short list of CEO candidates for a lot of big, splashy online jobs, but he seems to want to swim his own way.

Case in point: He was recently named CEO of New York-based 1stdibs, a relatively obscure online marketplace known among antique dealers and interior designers looking for one-of-a-kind furniture, art and lighting.

Yes, that’s right: Fancy lamps.

Rosenblatt also serves on the boards at Group Commerce, Twitter and IAC.

All that Internet ad and e-commerce experience is exactly why Rosenblatt would be one of the better choices for CEO of Yahoo. But, for him, I would guess taking such a job is probably in the life’s-too-short category.

More to come, obvi!

Yahoo shareholders felt a little giddier earlier this week, when it seemed as if the company had finally decided to make a deal with its Asian partners.

But the happiest crew might end up being the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s outside counsel, Skadden Arps — and especially Leif King, the fantastically named legal eagle who has been advising Yahoo on the deal.

That’s because today the Yahoo board approved continuing the negotiations to come to a final agreement over the stake, sources said, which should take six to eight weeks.

It’ll surely be happy holidays for billable hours!

As costly as the legal bills will be, if it all goes well, an Asian solution will mean one major problem solved, with a possible pile of cash and new assets coming in to Yahoo.

To get there, the company signed a term sheet earlier this week with Japan’s SoftBank to sell back all its holdings there, and with China’s Alibaba Group to sell off more than half its stake (moving from a 40 percent stake to a 15 percent one).

The deal values Yahoo’s total shares in both companies at about $17 billion.

While it gets a pretty accounting name — “cash-rich split “– the vehicle to unwind it all is essentially a complex tax dodge finally cooked up by the trio, in which cash, new assets and stock will be moved around until everyone gets what they want (except the U.S. government).

I would explain it — but I am on vacation, and would rather drink eggnog and sleep — so here is The Wall Street Journal’s version, which I like because it sounds like Alibaba and SoftBank are giving Yahoo a hugely loaded Starbucks card for Christmas:

“As envisioned in the scenario, Alibaba would create a subsidiary into which it would put several billion dollars of cash, plus an operating asset that Yahoo wants to buy using additional cash from Alibaba, almost like giving Yahoo a prepaid card for an asset of its choice, the people said.”

Everyone is hoping there will not be any hiccups in the deal, which has been spearheaded by Yahoo board member and Intuit CEO Brad Smith, and Jerry Yang, who is also the company’s co-founder and a major shareholder.

Alibaba CEO Jack Ma and CFO Joe Tsai, both co-founders of that company, were the point men for the Chinese company. And for SoftBank, it was its founder and CEO Masa Son and his main U.S. exec, Ron Fisher.

Now, said sources, Yahoo’s board is hoping to still keep the bids from a pair of private equity firms — Silver Lake and TPG Capital — alive.

While initially the focus on the action, the PE bidding for partial Yahoo stakes has recently been sidelined by the Asian deal.

Now, sources said, Yahoo is hoping the new infusion of cash and assets will allow it fend off shareholder unrest — stock buybacks and dividends, anyone — to solicit higher prices from the firms to make strategic investments.

Yahoo had considered the initial bids too low, as did some very pissed-off activist shareholders.

Still, it’s not clear if those firms will jack their offers now, although sources said Silver Lake is still interested in some sort of deal that would give it influence over remaking Yahoo.

Silver Lake and others think the long-troubled company could be revived with some effort, and become a much more lucrative Web property.

But those negotiations might run into roadblocks over who gets to pick leadership for the company. Yahoo has accelerated its efforts to hire a new CEO, after firing Carol Bartz in September.

The PE firms, who would buy a large stake in Yahoo, also have wanted some level of control, including CEO and board approval, in order to be able to make massive changes at the company to turn it around.

Wall Street seems to like the Asian part of the deal, at least, since it shows some sort of forward momentum at Yahoo, and from its often-lugubrious board.

Shares are up almost 7 percent in the last few days, although they are not popping as they might be, given that new valuations based on a successful Asian deal put the stock at a much higher price.

In other words, investors like what they see, but are watching and waiting for more.

Yahoo currently owns about 40 percent of Alibaba, the value of which it pegged at about $13 billion in September. Yahoo also owns 35 percent of Yahoo Japan, a publicly traded company that has Japanese Internet firm Softbank as another large shareholder.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Whatever you want to call him or her — a silver bullet, the cure or, as I like to say, the last unicorn — Yahoo’s ever-seeking and never-deciding board has now renewed its focus on finding a new CEO.

Also on the docket: Working on a deal to sell back at least some of its stake in its twin Asian assets — Yahoo Japan and the Alibaba Group — back to the companies. A partial sale of stock back could placate the often tense situation among the partners.

What is clear is that the two bids from private equity firms are now in an undetermined circling pattern — due to a variety of concerns around shareholder unrest (Occupy Yahoo looms for 2012).

Therefore, the idea of bringing in said fantasy leader to perhaps finally be the one to revive the long-troubled company has returned to the forefront of action, according to numerous sources both inside and outside the company.

The concept in short, said people familiar with the situation: Hire some compelling and entrepreneurial CEO to get the company moving again from a product point of view, do a massive organizational overhaul and help settle Yahoo’s thorny Asian issues.

While a number of names have been rumored in reports — such as Google business lead Nikesh Arora, who is actually not likely to leave his top post at the search giant — sources said the board has been targeting a number of candidates, including Hulu CEO Jason Kilar.

Others on Yahoo’s wish list include Juniper CEO Kevin Johnson and online advertising entrepreneur Brian McAndrews, who sold aQuantive to Microsoft. There are several others also being considered.

Sources said Kilar has met with Yahoo board members about the offer, but his hiring would be a long shot.

It’s an interesting — if complex — gambit to bring in Kilar, who has had his own wrangles with the multi-owner structure of the premium video service over the years.

Kilar’s status at Hulu has been in question ever since it was put on the block, then removed and then — well — who knows.

Hulu’s owners — News Corp., Disney and Providence Equity Partners, along with Comcast (which is a now a passive investor) — did not like the offers it got from various bidders, including Yahoo.

While the media giants have made noises about wanting to keep a stake in distribution, their commitment to that remains unclear.

The situation has put Kilar — who already had tense relations with the service’s shareholders — in limbo until a valuation is determined next year. Without going into the complex details, Kilar has a large equity stake that could be liquid in April, related to certain rights held by Providence.

It is well known that Kilar has been concerned the team that built Hulu gets some sort of payout for their work. In fact, many years ago, Hulu was seen as a possible IPO candidate.

What’s not in question is Kilar’s talent at creating a cohesive team and a compelling product — especially with an advertising and media focus — and the need at Yahoo for a vibrant leader to encourage innovation and discourage its rapidly increasing attrition issues.

The search for a new Yahoo CEO — which is being led by director Patti Hart, and is being conducted by Heidrick & Struggles — had been mostly sidelined until recently, as the board solicited bids for a partial investment from PE firms.

Two emerged, from Silver Lake and TPG Capital, which had wanted to pay from $16.50 to $18 a share for a stake of just under 20 percent in what is called a PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) arrangement.

But the low price, and worries about lawsuits and even a proxy fight related to such a deal, have slowed down the momentum significantly, said sources.

Instead, Yahoo has told bidders it will get back to them in the coming weeks about the direction it will take. Thus, the focus on lining up CEO candidates and plans related to reviving Yahoo.

Some of those possible execs have put their hand up, while others — like Kilar — are being solicited. In addition, some still think that Yahoo board member David Kenny remains an internal option, especially if the board of Yahoo gets a refresh, despite his recent announcement that he has no intention of seeking the job.

In general, this shift should not come has a surprise for the hurry-up-and-wait board of Yahoo, which has struggled over the years to make good choices for the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

That drift has resulted in a downturn in its prospects, even as other companies have surged.

Those troubles were brought into sharp focus in a recent report by new Goldman Sachs Internet analyst Heath Terry, who strafed Yahoo in his “sell” recommendation.

Among the gems by an analyst whose investment bank is currently an advisor to Yahoo on its strategic options:

Yahoo simply faces too many competitive and structural headwinds to believe any kind of meaningful turnaround is possible. While there is significant asset value on the balance sheet and in the company’s large, though increasingly less engaged user base, we continue to believe, as we have since before the first Microsoft offer, that the segment of management driving the company is intent on trying to revive Yahoo as a company, regardless of the cost to shareholders.

And, noting the need for a new CEO:

We would become more positive if we felt there was a likely event in the near term that might unlock the value of the balance sheet assets at Yahoo. While we believe the aggregate value of those assets is above the value reflected in YHOO, in order to be more positive on the stock we would need some proof that management is willing and able to take the steps necessary to unlock that value either through a sale or distribution to shareholders. Meanwhile, the declining profitability of the core display advertising business is masked by a search business that continues to lose share and relies on artificial support from Microsoft. We would become more positive on the core Yahoo business if the company is able to find a new CEO capable of focusing the business on its core advertising and communications opportunities, rationalizing costs, and driving growth. This would require user growth and especially engagement improvements in both online and mobile, improving monetization of advertising inventory, and stabilizing its search business.

In other words: Wanted, one unicorn to work magic against increasingly troublesome dragons. Ability to sparkle a plus.

“Let’s go. Yes, let’s go.” [They do not move.]

– Samuel Beckett, “Waiting for Godot”

In Internet terms, the removal of Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz happened a dog’s age ago.

In fact, it was September 6.

Since then, it has felt like a slow slog, especially contrasting the situation with that of another troubled Silicon Valley giant, Hewlett-Packard, which fired its CEO Léo Apotheker and appointed a new one, Meg Whitman on September 22.

Since then, in comparison, the former eBay CEO has been like the Energizer Bunny, making a series of major and often difficult decisions, including: Holding onto its PC unit; reaffirming its controversial deal to buy Autonomy; promising a decision on the fate of its webOS unit within the next two weeks; appointing new execs; and even buying a company.

To be fair, Yahoo did acquire advertising start-up Interclick.

Otherwise, still no sale or investment deal. No new CEO. No Asia resolution. And, perhaps most importantly, no clearly articulated strategy going forward.

It’s not that Yahoo’s leadership isn’t working at it.

Some fervently insist to me that there is a “plan,” as if there is some clever game of Internet Stratego going on that I cannot possibly grok.

Mebbe — but of this I have no doubt: The Yahoo board has indeed been huffing and puffing away, weighing and measuring, considering and debating.

A lot.

Maybe I’m just too impatient. I am (ask my kids).

Or maybe Yahoo’s beleaguered employees are, one of whom just wrote me plaintively, “unreal how they can drag this out,” in what has become a common refrain up and down the ranks.

Or maybe it’s the Asian partners, Alibaba Group and SoftBank, who are antsy and have considered a variety of nuclear options in order to get back stakes Yahoo holds in them. Said one: “The strategy seems to be to frustrate and exhaust us into submission.”

Or, finally, maybe it’s the newly frustrated recent bidders for a partial stake in Yahoo, Silver Lake and TPG Capital. Declared one to me after I warned that Yahoo might, in fact, drag the proceedings out longer than you might expect: “I thought you were kidding.”

Nope, welcome to the Yahoo waiting game, PE guys!

So, to help us all get through it, here’s a quick update primer on what’s what on the various fronts:

Who’s in Charge Here?

Technically, it is the Yahoo board, which is aided by interim CEO Tim Morse.

First, a word about Morse: By all accounts, he is doing a very good job as temporary head honcho — calming the troubled company, making swift decisions about daily operating issues and being a generally nice dude to deal with.

“He’s Yahoo’s no-drama Obama, in comparison to what was happening before,” said one exec, in reference to the more volatile regime under Bartz.

Still, despite his very pleasant all-hands meetings, such as one earlier this week, Morse had previously been Yahoo’s CFO and not an Internet-savvy visionary to give the company inspiration. No insult intended, but he’s the accountant guy.

To be fair, he is not meant to be the visionary, but many at the company are yearning for exactly that.

A role that is now being taken up again by co-founder, former CEO and director Jerry Yang, who dozens of employees tell me is unusually involved in operational details these days for a board member.

I get reports of sightings of him all the livelong day: Jerry in demand-side advertising confab! Jerry chitchatting with entrepreneurs from a possible start-up acquisition! Jerry weighing in on a variety of products. Look, over in the cubicle, it’s Jerry!

This is seen by Yahoo employees as a good thing and also a bad thing, since it’s hard to be running your little divisional show at Yahoo with the dude who invented it all looking over your shoulder, even if he means well. People naturally defer to Yang, the 800-pound Web icon in the room.

But, given the overwhelming state of stasis at Yahoo now — “No one can do anything until we find out how the story ends,” said one staffer — and employees eying the exits, no power at Yahoo really matters but the board.

You know, the board that has gotten the company to this moment of crisis and profound ennui, which is its own particularly ironic irony.

To better understand the power dynamics on the board, above is a little chart for you to peruse to give you an idea of which independent board member is running what key committee.

The only truly important one is the Transactions and Strategic Planning committee, which is headed by Intuit President and CEO Brad Smith and includes former Akamai President (and former Yahoo CEO candidate) David Kenny, top HP exec Vyomesh Joshi and other guy Gary Wilson.

And, in completely visible shadow form, Yang. Multiple sources close to the situation said he has been a key force in the strategery around a possible sale or investment.

This has caused not more than a little tension among board members, but everyone seems to like the much described nicest-man-in-the-room, Smith, and hopes his cool head will prevail.

Another important part of the board is the Nominating and Corporate Governance committee run by Patti Hart, who is energetically and simultaneously — if pointlessly — in search of a capable new Yahoo CEO.

Or, as I like to call this mythical person: The Unicorn.

The Deal

As I and many others have previously reported, there are bids on the table for partial investments in Yahoo by two very powerful private equity firms, Silver Lake and TPG Capital.

It’s a PE rumble, with a side of Microsoft financial backing! (I think Silver Lake’s Egon Durban makes a very nice Riff, while Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer is the perfect Officer Krupke.)

My fervent wishes for some figurative and dance-accompanied knife-play aside, the bids are essentially the same in general and different in particular. Silver Lake is offering about $16.50 a share, while TPG is dangling a tiny bit more. Silver Lake has power entrepreneur and VC Marc Andreessen on its side, while TPG is trying to get Silicon Valley fave investor and start-up whisperer Reid Hoffman of Greylock Partners and LinkedIn on its team. Both have ideas on CEOs, strategy and what to do about the Asian assets.

This type of deal could happen suddenly and you’ll hear about it quick, since the losing side will immediately trash it to the media.

As you might expect, each director has their favorite PE firm, with some not liking Andreessen, some thinking the TPG bid is a little light, some for a whole-company deal and some wanting Yahoo to hire its own CEO and run the place itself.

Of course, the last one shows a disturbing level of denial and should be a nonstarter, given the board’s abysmal record on CEO choice and its riding of Yahoo to this sad point in its storied history.

Here’s what to expect on the PE front: A lot of wrangling behind the scenes with frequent leaks to the media about what each side wants and will not yield on.

CEO choice or no CEO choice, that is the question!

Also a big factor are Yahoo’s major shareholders, few of whom like the partial investment deal, which is known as a PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity), because of the insiderness of it all and because they prefer a whole-company sale at a higher price.

There is also pressure from activist shareholders like Daniel Loeb of Third Point, who has attacked Yang and others on the board and is ready to pounce with a proxy fight if Yahoo tries to override shareholders too egregiously. And, of course, the inevitable lawsuits over any arrangement that seems to block a whole-company bid.

That said, such a mega-deal seems unlikely, since it is too pricey and despite a lot of noise that Yahoo’s Asian partners were ready to strike with a takeover in order to get back Yahoo’s big stakes in their companies.

That’s kind of like buying a store to get back the cool pair of shoes you sold, but bankers love to scheme up this stuff. While it certainly could happen, it would be a bear of a deal.

Perhaps more like Yogi Bear, hopelessly angling for a tasty pic-a-nik basket — but grrrr anyway.

But perhaps the biggest factor in all of this mishegas is time. There is none on a lot of levels, most especially the increasing level of brain drain and drift at Yahoo. After the New Year dawns, this is going to spin right out of control and amount to the biggest internal challenge Yahoo faces.

An Asian Solution

As I and others have reported, Yahoo is entertaining yet another proposal to sell all or part of its Asian assets back to the companies, which make up a bulk of its market valuation.

The relationship between Yahoo and its Asian partners has long been fraught, and today the difficulty of reaching an agreement remains a vexing issue. That’s because it is hard and complex and because no one wants to do what the other side wants.

I am no tax attorney, but it seems as if Yahoo will ultimately come to some deal with China’s Alibaba and Japan’s SoftBank, which could include big investors like Russia’s DST Global.

And, as I reported last week, the Asian partners want to strike a deal with the current board rather than lose leverage with a much cannier new owner.

It’s a tough decision in all aspects to strike, but would remove the focus on the fact that Yahoo’s most valuable asset is something it is not running and simply holds due to a good stock trade in years past.

Years past should be the operative thought here, since the Asian assets have nothing to do with what Yahoo needs to do with its core U.S. and global brand.

You know, the thing that allowed them to buy those lucrative Asian assets in the first place?

Strategery

And that’s the crux of all this, isn’t it? Yahoo needs a new strategy and fast.

Or it needs to clarify and hone its current strategies around advertising and media and define itself once and for all. While it often touts itself as a premier digital media company, it’s still not clear exactly what Yahoo is saying by that.

In fact, incredibly, sources told me that the board was still wrangling over the tired issue of what Yahoo is at its most recent meeting — essentially, is it a products company or a media company?

If I had to listen to that who-am-I-anyway debate again, I think I would scream, given how many important Web trends that Yahoo has whiffed in recent years, many of which were right in its own wheelhouse.

How much damage this has caused to Yahoo’s core business is a critical one to determine, with many feeling the situation is too far gone to revive it and others confident that this is simply an issue of poor execution.

I am in the middle on this one, but all the indicators of Yahoo’s business have long been heading in the wrong direction, and results in the next quarter are expected to underline this even more.

Thus, the board’s navel-gazing at this point is untoward, considering that it is presiding over the possibility of a sale that should not have had to happen in the first place. While it is not quite a fire sale, it’s no cause for celebration at all the attention, either.

In fact, it’s also pointless, since — if this all resolves as it should — the current Yahoo board will not be the one determining the company’s future any longer. Remember that: This group should and will be gone for the most part.

Yahoo shareholders and employees can hope, at least.

Then, it will be up to the next group of leaders to make the very hard choices — including what are likely to be massive layoffs and radical surgery on its offerings — for what’s to come next.

In the end, that is all that will matter. Until then, as usual, you’ll have to sit tight.

What took so long?

Actually, it did not take any time at all for someone to start legal proceedings against the current effort by Yahoo to sell itself.

In this case, no surprise, it is aimed directly at the how of doing it.

In an unusual injunction request, M&C Partners is seeking to enjoin the Silicon Valley Internet giant from using its stringent “no cross talk” rule for its potential buyers to limit possible bidding syndicates.

“The No Cross Talk Provision constitutes an unreasonable anti-takeover device, designed to entrench and favor [Yahoo co-founder, director and major shareholder Jerry] Yang and the current Board,” reads the legal filing, in part.

In addition, M&C does not like what it calls a “Minority Stake Promise,” which it alleges Yahoo is “requiring those who sign the Confidentiality Agreement to use any information they receive to confine themselves to a bid for only a minority stake.”

That refers to the fantastically named PIPE deals — or Private Investment in Public Equity — that PE firms like Silver Lake and TPG Capital have just offered. These are bids to buy 19.9 percent of Yahoo, which will essentially give them a lot of power.

Both allegations are, well, exactly what Yahoo is doing, even if it’s not for the filing’s stated nefarious reason. Thus, M&C doesn’t think that’s okay, presumably because it wants investors to be able to make a deal without Yahoo’s bossy rules.

To be clear, Yahoo is named in lawsuits all the time for a wide variety of things, such as a case in which one group is alleging it botched a deal with the Alibaba Group over its Alipay controversy to another alleging the price it paid for in its recent $270 million acquisition of Interclick was too low.

And so it is here, one of many to come, I suspect. In this one, there’s also a class-action request and various and sundry bashing of Yang, which you can read below:

yhoo

Though last week’s reports were overblown and premature, it certainly might come to that at some point if past is prologue — Alibaba CEO Jack Ma has declared his interest publicly a number of times and has certainly been busy lining up his financial and strategic partners to do so.

This is one very sharp sword of Damocles hovering over Yahoo that could drop at any time and very quickly. It has impact, too, because every day there are unsettling Wall Street whispers that the bid is coming — I got three today, in fact, that it would happen Monday.

Actually, the day it is most likely to happen is the moment after Yahoo once again turns down the pair’s latest offer to buy back their shares in a complex tax-free transaction.

This has been a multi-year effort on the part of the trio, one littered mostly with recrimination and tears. Lots and lots of tears.

But this time, it’s critical to the Asian partners to strike the deal with Yahoo — and before its current board does another deal with current private equity bidders it is now contemplating.

Because once new leadership is in power, Ma’s leverage goes buh-bye. Now, it is a quantum level higher with the old Yahoos than with the next ones, who will have much more control and power over the company.

Thus, the threat of a possible whole company bid at a higher prices — a tasty treat to disgruntled shareholders — keeps the pressure on Yahoo’s current directors not to make a partial deal that is considered wanting.

This bird in the hand is seen as critical to Alibaba and SoftBank, who want only to get back their stakes and not to engage in what would turn into an ugly and hostile battle for control of all of Yahoo.

As one source told me last week: “The threat of a takeover is more useful than the damage an actual takeover would cause for everyone. No one wants this to be unfriendly.”

Perish the thought!

Yahoo board member Brad Smith — who is Intuit’s CEO and president in his spare time — has become the key man in this whole complex sales process and has also taken up the central role in dealing with the Asian proposal, along with Yahoo’s interim CEO, Tim Morse, and its legal head, Mike Callaghan.

They have to wrangle what to do with Yahoo’s 40 percent stake in Alibaba and a 35 percent holding in Yahoo Japan, which makes up a great deal of the company’s value and has become its most vexing Gordian knot.

Still, after a number of previous efforts failed miserably, Alibaba and Softbank brought yet another proposal to Yahoo in early October that would spin off the stakes to them and also avoid a big tax bill.

The sides have been talking on and off amid the other noise at Yahoo of late, which this week centered on low-priced bids for a partial investment in Yahoo from two separate PE firms, Silver Lake and TPG Capital.

Now what Yahoo does with its Asian assets matters to them, too, as both have their own plans for the dispensation of those stakes as key elements of their deals.

So it is not clear what would happen if the Alibaba and SoftBank shares were sold before either deal was done.

But it is unlikely to be a positive thing.

“The Asian assets are downside protection if the core Yahoo business is melting faster than anyone thinks,” said one person. “Without it there, Yahoo might be a lot more risky to buy into.”

Like, you might say, trying to catch a falling knife.

What an amazing coincidence.

On the very day Yahoo’s board is considering actual bids from two private equity firms interested in deals to buy close to 20 percent of the company for between $16.50 and $17.50 a share, comes a spate of eerily similar breathless media postings that there’s another bid in the making for $20!

That’s totes better, right? I mean, how can Yahoo’s directors accept a real live lesser-priced bid now when there’s a prettier one in the fog just ahead?

No, really, it’s there — if you squint really, really hard.

Except it’s not even close, when you actually check with two of the key members of the group of alleged buyers, which would apparently be Blackstone, Bain Capital and Yahoo’s Asian partners, Alibaba Group and SoftBank.

Sources close to Blackstone and Alibaba said while there have been talks, which have been previously reported weeks ago here and elsewhere, there is no bid in the offing that is close to fruition and at that price.

In an unusual public statement, in fact, Alibaba’s John Spelich said flatly: “Alibaba Group has not made a decision to be part of a whole-company bid for Yahoo.”

This from a company whose voluble CEO Jack Ma is prone to making giant and noisy speeches to signal his interest in finding a way — any way — to get back shares of the Chinese Internet giant from Yahoo.

Not this time, and several sources close to Alibaba reiterated that it was nowhere near close to any bid as yet and that a price is still up in the air. In addition, sources added, Alibaba might decide to work with another PE group, such as Providence Equity.

In addition, sources noted that if Alibaba could strike an adequate deal with private equity bidders to get a large chunk of the stake back, it would be highly preferable to a hostile takeover of Yahoo that could end in tears and little else.

“The threat of a takeover is more useful than the damage an actual takeover would cause for everyone,” said one person close to the situation. “No one wants this to be unfriendly.”

So why the rumors — doubtlessly being spread around by hopelessly cynical Wall Street types interested only in stock manipulation — surfacing today?

Simple: To get some easy-to-play media outlet to bite, report it as speculative fact and cause the stock of Yahoo to take flight tomorrow.

Hey, it could happen!

Sadly, this junior-league trick has already worked — Yahoo shares were up a dollar to $16.72 in after-hours trading tonight.

It is likely to go even higher tomorrow, which could cause the board of Yahoo to delay accepting either of the partial bids from Silver Lake or TPG Capital, even if they were the best thing for the company and its employees.

Except that the job of the Yahoo board is to evaluate what’s before them and not what is perhaps, someday, soon, wait-by-the-phone, really soon, I promise is going to be delivered.

In fact, several sources noted that it’s not clear if the Yahoo board has even asked for parties to submit whole-company bids yet.

When and if Yahoo’s board does that and if something better actually does come down the pike, with a much fatter price tag of $20 or more, then the directors can mull that over.

That would be the prudent thing to do for the company, its employees and its shareholders, even if Yahoo’s stock gets a temporary lift now.

Maybe I am just a hopeless Silicon Valley romantic and not a hardened Wall Street M&A type, but the survival of Yahoo is the real point here, rather than the lining of bankers’ already fee-stuffed pockets.

And anything other than that is just fog.

Last night, Yahoo’s board gathered for a pre-meeting dinner, a precursor to a day-long meeting today to weigh several bids from private equity firms to buy part of the Silicon Valley Internet giant, including Silver Lake and TPG Capital.

Among the thorniest of issues will be the low price that the firms want to pay for a 19.9 percent stake in the company. Silver Lake has offered $16.50 and TPG a dollar more.

In the past year, Yahoo share prices have seen a low of $11.09 and a high of almost $19. It closed yesterday at $15.70 — a price that is mostly due to sale rumors — making the offers not much of a gain on current market valuation.

The transaction type being contemplated is called a PIPE — or a Private Investment in Public Equity — with the investment below 20 percent, which allows Yahoo to avoid a shareholder vote on the issue.

While the Yahoo board had hoped for bids above $20, they are not expected to be forthcoming, considering the weakness in its business over recent years and the difficulty of returning it to health and growth.

Results in its upcoming quarter, for example, are expected to be weak again, with trouble in its advertising business, largely due to uncertainty around the business.

The low price, along with the attempt to bypass shareholder approval, is sure to infuriate Yahoo’s major investors, given they have watched the value of their stakes wilt over the years under current board management.

In the last five years, due to continually muddled leadership and the missing of key Internet trends, Yahoo shares have dropped 44 percent in value, which compares with huge gains from companies like Amazon and others.

Major Yahoo stakeholders are already irked by the PIPE idea itself, which could transfer power to private equity firms at preferential terms.

Another possible bone of contention will be the preservation of at least some parts of Yahoo’s current board.

Under a plan by Silver Lake, for example, it would get three board seats, as well as another one for a CEO of its choosing. Another seat will go to Yahoo co-founder and current board member Jerry Yang. There will be six independent board members, but it is not clear if they would be new or include some current directors.

One of the Silver Lake choices would be well-known Silicon Valley legend Marc Andreessen, who is now a powerful VC. The appeal of Andreessen is important to some major shareholders who have turned sour on Yang.

Who will be CEO of the rejiggered entity will also be discussed at the meeting. Sources said Silver Lake and TPG have definite candidates in mind and Yahoo has also been conducting an official search.

In other words, there’s a lot on the plate of Yahoo’s board today, which also needs to revisit continued proposals from its Asian partners — China’s Alibaba Group and SoftBank of Japan — to sell back its stakes in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan in various tax-free schemes.

Sources said Yahoo — which has thus far rejected such efforts — might now consider selling a part of their shares back, up to half. This would allow the company to give a cash dividend to its disgruntled shareholders.

If thwarted, as has been previously reported ad nauseum, Alibaba and SoftBank are considering their own bid with the help of other U.S. private equity firms, such as Blackstone.

Other PE firms — especially ones who have not signed Yahoo’s non-disclosure agreement related to any deal — are also hanging under the hoop, so to speak, to see what happens. At least one firm hopes the Yahoo board will reject the low-priced partial bids, leaving the court wide open again.

“It’s still anyone’s game,” said one possible bidder.

Except for Yahoo’s put-upon employees and shareholders, this is anything but fun. More on that soon.

Alibaba CEO Jack Ma publicly promised in an onstage interview two weeks ago at our AsiaD conference in Hong Kong that his Chinese Internet company would start to meet with U.S. private equity firms to come up with possible ways to purchase Yahoo.

Now, as advertised loudly: Among the first stops, said several sources, was a meeting this week with Blackstone, a prominent New York investment firm that has been one of several large ones that have not signed a restrictive non-disclosure agreement with Yahoo.

The efforts to collect a possible investing group are being led by Alibaba CEO Jack Ma and the Chinese company’s CFO Joe Tsai, who are also working along with Japan’s SoftBank head Masa Son and its U.S. head Ron Fisher.

The group has been angling to hook up with one of several U.S.-based firms that has not signed the Yahoo NDA, in order to figure out a way to get back the huge and lucrative stakes the Silicon Valley Internet giant holds in both Asian companies.

Ma telegraphed this intent clearly at a speech at Stanford University last month and then later at AsiaD, saying:

“I think we still have not changed our mind, and we keep our strong interest on Yahoo. The thing is that we are waiting for the Yahoo board, and especially their independent directors, to tell us what exactly they want to do.”

At the time, Ma said he had limited patience, though, and would seek out other help if Yahoo did not want to play.

While it seems a little like a tail-wagging-the-dog effort, Yahoo’s Asian assets make up a lot of the value of the whole company right now.

This has emboldened Alibaba especially to try to position itself as a kingmaker in Yahoo’s current strategic review, which might include a sale of all or part of the company.

The importance of Yahoo’s Asian assets is quite true, but it’s a notion Yahoo is trying to block. In addition, it has also rejected several recent Alibaba efforts to buy back its stake.

Instead, Yahoo is considering not selling its Asian shares at all, while also getting key PE firms to throw in their lots with a company-controlled process around a variety of restructuring options.

Along with TPG Capital and KKR, Silver Lake agreed this week to the Yahoo NDA, which includes a no “cross-talk” provision among possible bidders.

That’s why Alibaba is seeking cash-rich partners who can talk to anyone they like, such as Blackstone. Interestingly, the firm knows a lot about Yahoo, having advised Microsoft on its failed takeover attempt several years ago.

Alibaba has also has been in touch with Bain Capital and Providence Equity Partners, among others, and is also considering larger strategic partners in the U.S., such as Microsoft.

Having a U.S. firm or company involved will be important since buying Yahoo would likely be a thorny issue for Alibaba and SoftBank, due to foreign ownership rules here.

While not certain, such a deal would likely face CFIUS — which is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the federal interagency review process for foreign investment deals.

As I previously wrote:

“Translation: If you are from China and want to buy our U.S. companies, we are going to have to give you a major look-see and it is not going to be pretty.”

Alibaba has been working with Singapore’s Temasek and also Russia’s DST Global, but a consortium of only non-U.S. buyers would inevitably face tougher regulatory scrutiny.

If the group can come up with the money and an adequate deal structure at all, that is.

Buying all of Yahoo to get back their stock is tricky and would be a huge and complex endeavor, even if the group used a variety of tax-free schemes being considered.

But, even if an offer he makes was unsolicited, Alibaba’s Ma does have an ability to shake up angry Yahoo shareholders, especially if his deal is attractive enough and if he can paint the current Yahoo management as, well, Yahoos.

As AllThingsD‘s Peter Kafka noted at the end of his Ma interview at AsiaD:

“So, if you can sum up, Jerry Yang, Yahoo, independent directors, please make up your mind. Signed, Jack Ma.”

Answered the typically more voluble Ma simply, to the laughter of the audience: “Yes!”

For more, here’s Ma talking Yahoo at AsiaD in October:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111111/alibaba-and-softbank-meet-with-blackstone-as-promised-yahoo-investment-effort-proceeds/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111111/ex-yahoos-getting-downloaded-by-pe-firms-and-others-on-possible-deals/ http://allthingsd.com/20111111/ex-yahoos-getting-downloaded-by-pe-firms-and-others-on-possible-deals/#comments Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:53:54 +0000 Kara Swisher http://allthingsd.com/?p=143361

One of Yahoo’s biggest problems — brain drain — has turned out to be an asset for private equity firms and other players interested in figuring out their best moves related to the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

A plethora of ex-Yahoos, including many former top execs, are getting buttonholed by those who want to know more about the inner workings of the company that might not be obvious from its copious financial data available publicly.

That includes former Americas head Hilary Schneider, who has a longer-term consulting gig with TPG Capital, one of the several PE firms that has recently signed a non-disclosure agreement with Yahoo; former COO and President Sue Decker, who has had a longtime informal relationship with Blackstone, which has not signed the NDA and has been in talks with Yahoo’s Asian partners, China’s Alibaba Group and Japan’s SoftBank; and even former CEO Carol Bartz, who sources say has also been contacted to get her insights.

She is one of many in that regard, in a large pool of former Yahoos, such as: LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner, who had run Yahoo’s media efforts; Chegg CEO Dan Rosensweig, former Yahoo COO; SurveyMonkey CEO Dave Goldberg, who ran swathes of Yahoo’s entertainment properties; Criteo CEO Greg Coleman, former Yahoo sales head; former CEO Terry Semel, who is now an investor; former communications exec Brad Garlinghouse, who is now at AOL; and Demand Media Chief Revenue Officer Joanne Bradford, who also was a top Yahoo advertising exec.

Not all are cooperating with the requests for a chitchat about Yahoo, but there is much incoming interest in ex-Yahoos and what they might know.

There’s lots more where that came from, from all parts and all levels of Yahoo, given the breadth of the exes now doing very well — thank you very much — throughout the tech and media industries.

Thus, calls from PE firms, from Silver Lake to Bain Capital to Providence Equity Partners, as well as interest from major and majorly irritated shareholders, such as activist hedge fund investor Dan Loeb.

It’s a smart idea to tap this rich vein of information, as all contemplate possible multi-billion-dollar investments.

While some of these execs have not worked at Yahoo in many years, all have significant knowledge about the challenges and also the culture that cannot be gleaned from spreadsheets.

They also know a lot about the internal politics and personalities of the existing inside players, too. More importantly, several were involved in similar previous major business decisions at Yahoo.

Decker, for example, was a key exec in the Yahoo takeover attempt by Microsoft several years ago; Schneider and Bartz were deeply involved in striking the advertising and search partnership with Microsoft.

“Between everyone, it’s a good way to figure out where all the bodies are buried,” said one person close to the situation. “And there are a lot of bodies.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111111/ex-yahoos-getting-downloaded-by-pe-firms-and-others-on-possible-deals/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111109/exclusive-silver-lake-signs-yahoo-nda-as-talks-proceed-with-bidders/ http://allthingsd.com/20111109/exclusive-silver-lake-signs-yahoo-nda-as-talks-proceed-with-bidders/#comments Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:08:27 +0000 Kara Swisher http://allthingsd.com/?p=142381

Score one for Yahoo, it seems, getting some key private equity firms to sign its restrictive non-disclosure agreement to allow them a special peek at its business.

And now that includes Silver Lake, which has already had several discussions with Yahoo management and its board members, including co-founder Jerry Yang.

Silver Lake, which has perhaps been among the more aggressive of the possible bidders for Yahoo, had been a significant holdout over the NDA, because of provisions it felt were too onerous.

That included restricting “cross-talk” among the variety of suitors interested. Sources said Silver Lake had been discussing various scenarios related to Yahoo that might take a consortium of players to realize.

It seems it will agree to none of that, for now at least, joining several others who have also signed on the dotted line of secrecy. While Yahoo could have agreed to changes in the NDA, sources said the one Silver Lake agreed to was the same as others previously signed.

Those NDA-ready PE firms include TPG Capital and KKR. As of today, other bidders — such as Providence Equity Partners, Bain Capital, Blackstone and Hellman & Friedman — have not yet signed the document.

Yahoo had extended a deadline for doing to into this week, but firms can also get involved in later rounds of talks.

In addition, signing the NDA is not the end of the road for those who do not — Yahoo is a prominent public company and there are plenty of sources to talk to about its prospects.

But getting cooperation of Yahoo management could be critical, unless a bidder is contemplating making an unsolicited offer.

And that would be a tough road — just ask Microsoft.

Most of all, getting everyone to sign is important for Yahoo, which wants to control any sales or investment process and wants to avoid bidders taking control of its fate.

Thus, Silver Lake accepting the NDA is a big deal, since it had been considering hooking up with China’s Alibaba Group in a possible bid for all or part of Yahoo.

In addition, it has had success in a smaller but similar scenario around Internet telephony giant Skype, which it eventually sold to Microsoft for a lucrative upside.

As with Skype, Silver Lake is still working with Andreessen Horowitz, as I had previously reported. In fact, principal Marc Andreessen was present in a recent informational meeting Silver Lake had with Yahoo’s Yang.

I asked Silver Lake for comment about the NDA, bur it, um, deflected my swooping inquiry (inside joke alert!).

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111109/exclusive-silver-lake-signs-yahoo-nda-as-talks-proceed-with-bidders/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111103/alibabas-jack-ma-on-yahoo-and-more-yahoo-the-full-asiad-interview-video/ http://allthingsd.com/20111103/alibabas-jack-ma-on-yahoo-and-more-yahoo-the-full-asiad-interview-video/#comments Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:00:04 +0000 Kara Swisher http://allthingsd.com/?p=140152

We are now posting the full videos from the recent AsiaD conference, which took place in Hong Kong in October.

Over the next two weeks, we’re going to follow the schedule of the actual event. Up now: Alibaba Group’s voluble CEO and co-founder Jack Ma.

Ma has cut quite a colorful path through the Internet space, both in China and, more recently, in the U.S. — mostly due to his high-profile wrangling with partner and major shareholder Yahoo.

And, in the midst of the Silicon Valley Internet company’s endless agonizing over what to do with itself, Ma has thrown Alibaba into the mix prominently as a self-described kingmaker to any deal. Also, he has said he wants to buy Yahoo too.

Ma talks about all this, as well as his thoughts on the Asian markets, his goals for Alibaba and more, in an onstage interview with Peter Kafka.

As he told the audience at the AsiaD event:

“We’ve been working with Yahoo for years to buy a portion of them or buy them out. Money is not the problem. The problem is what Yahoo wants to do.”

Indeed, so watch Ma in action:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111103/alibabas-jack-ma-on-yahoo-and-more-yahoo-the-full-asiad-interview-video/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111103/as-yahoo-ponders-its-fate-endlessly-selling-off-yahoo-japan-stake-is-suddenly-its-easiest-option/ http://allthingsd.com/20111103/as-yahoo-ponders-its-fate-endlessly-selling-off-yahoo-japan-stake-is-suddenly-its-easiest-option/#comments Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:49:54 +0000 Kara Swisher http://allthingsd.com/?p=140241

I have called Yahoo the Hamlet of the Internet many times, for its seemingly endless ruminating on what it should do and what it should be.

And that is true on a lot of fronts — from its strategic direction to rejiggering its advertising business to finding solid leadership to whether or not it will sell itself and how to a variety of bidders.

It’s no small irony then that perhaps it’s only easy move right now and the one most likely to happen soon — and which could temporarily assuage its always restless shareholders — is to finally settle a long and arduous effort to sell its Japanese assets.

Sources close to the situation said that the deal — as has been reported — is the closest to a deal compared to any other that Yahoo is contemplating.

Sale or outside investment discussions remain mired, while similar share sale discussions with its Chinese partner, Alibaba Group, remain a constant roundelay of dashed deals.

It has not always been thus recently between Yahoo and Yahoo Japan. Just over a year ago, the company shifted its paid and algorithmic search from Yahoo to Google, raising tensions between the companies.

Now, though, Japan has become the easy one.

In actuality, striking an actual deal is not and has been a task is on that Yahoo has been working on for many years, trying to figure out the best tax-free way to shed its 35 percent stake.

It makes sense, since the asset is no longer a strategic plus it once was.

It also frees up a lot of cash. As of September 30th, according to Yahoo, the pre-tax value of its Yahoo Japan stake was worth $6.4 billion. Presumably, Yahoo would either use the money to bolster its business or, more likely, give its shareholders some kind of dividend.

In such a deal, Yahoo’s longtime Japanese partner — and one of its very first investors — SoftBank would buy out Yahoo’s stake.

That’s the simple way of putting a deal that only an accountant can grok. But one plus is that if Yahoo does pull it off, it would be rid the company of one complication too many.

That said, any Japanese asset sale could also be impossible without a larger settlement of Yahoo’s globally connected issues — or, as I like to call it, the hairball.

And SoftBank, which already owns a lot of Yahoo Japan would certainly need more than just cash — perhaps more of Alibaba than it already owns — to be enticed to buy even more.

Also, for all intents and purpose, SoftBank is the only buyer of Yahoo’s Japan asset, so there’s that issue.

But if it could show some progress in some part of its hopelessly complicated world, for Yahoo, that is always a good thing.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111103/as-yahoo-ponders-its-fate-endlessly-selling-off-yahoo-japan-stake-is-suddenly-its-easiest-option/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111031/yahoo-shares-melt-as-rumors-conflict-with-other-rumors/ http://allthingsd.com/20111031/yahoo-shares-melt-as-rumors-conflict-with-other-rumors/#comments Tue, 01 Nov 2011 00:13:03 +0000 Kara Swisher http://allthingsd.com/?p=138192

Do sale rumors make a troubled asset more attractive? Yes — except when more rumors (that those sales rumors might not be true) appear.

Welcome to just another day in the life of Yahoo, which saw its shares drop more than 5.5 percent today. Its stock declined almost a dollar to close at $15.64, after it was reported by various news orgs that Yahoo might be leaning toward no sale and a shareholder dividend, and toward taking control of its own sale of its lucrative Asian assets.

That was counter to the news — from a number of the very same outlets — touting a variety of ever more elaborate and sometimes breathless sale scenarios last week, featuring various configurations of Microsoft, Google and private equity firms like Silver Lake and others.

Silver Lake, in fact, appears to be the most aggressive in the possible bidding for all or parts of Yahoo, and has been noodling such a deal most intently, and for a long time now.

It makes sense, given that Silver Lake was successful in a vaguely similar deal that ultimately saved the Internet telephony service Skype, which it eventually peddled at a high price to Microsoft.

In fact, according to several sources, Yahoo director and co-founder Jerry Yang — also a former CEO of the company, who appears to have seized the ball firmly in the strategy game — met with Silver Lake today for an unspecified little chitchat.

That said, one source told me, “what is deeply uncertain is whether Silver Lake will do something at all.”

This is par for the course in this everything-but-the-kitchen-sink drama. Because — although it makes for a boring post, and the back and forth throat-clearing before an actual event might be entertaining — so far, not very much is actually happening as yet at Yahoo, with regard to its variety of options.

Of course, this could change in an hour. Or tomorrow, or the next day. Most of all, it’s clear that Yahoo’s board has to move in some significant way before the end of the year.

So, yes, the Silicon Valley Internet giant is doing all the sales-oriented stuff it should do with its coterie of pricey bankers (presumably being paid by the hour).

Yes, it has recently hired a talent-search firm, which is eyeing the landscape to find a willing CEO. (Even more adviser costs!)

And, yes, it is still wrangling with its Asian partners — Alibaba Group and SoftBank — over how to do a tax-free transaction (you’d think from all the sweating over it that this deal was harder to solve than the European debt crisis).

And, on schedule, activist shareholders — like hedge-fund agitator Dan Loeb of Third Point — should be attacking again soon, until a deal is done.

But according to many sources both inside and outside Yahoo, what’s happening is pretty much business as usual for this Hamlet of a company, which is lugubriously debating and weighing and pondering its fate.

I suppose it should, given the importance of it all, except it is a conundrum that has been going on for far too long at Yahoo, and under a number of different leaders.

In other words, it’s like “As the World Turns,” except with some new characters and a whole lot more amnesia.

But the slowness of a very real process is also causing deep frustration with all those dealing with Yahoo now — including possible bidders, and definitely its Asian partners.

Their gripes — which are louder than in most deals — are not surprising: They refuse to sign a too-onerous NDA to look at Yahoo’s books; there’s an irksome tone of indecision on the part of the company’s board; and, as always, the incessant leaks about all of this and more are making it worse.

One bidder has likened the company to a “melting iceberg that has a lot less time than the planet has to put its house in order.”

Another bemoaned the variety of trial balloons being floated, and noted that no movement was what Yahoo seems to do best.

That’s not exactly true, of course, so expect to see more leaks about plots and plans and meetings.

But no matter what you hear, keep in mind that having Yahoo’s fate being spun about like a top on a daily basis on Wall Street and in the media is not good for the company itself — or for its employees and shareholders.

Since it makes me dizzy — even though I like a good scoop as much as the next reporter — that’s the reason I have largely stuck to reporting about the actual internal turmoil inside Yahoo, from poor employee morale to various staff rejiggerings to more relentless brain drain.

Because while everyone fiddles, Yahoo’s real prospects of maintaining its core business melt a little bit more every day.

Yahoo is on its third CEO in four years, it has lost advertising momentum to Google and Facebook, its engagement levels are dangerously slowing, its social and mobile strategies are unclear and even its powerful email product is under siege.

And in the end, it is only these things that will matter to whoever runs the company in the end.

[Photo from Mat Honan's fantastic tweet here.]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111031/yahoo-shares-melt-as-rumors-conflict-with-other-rumors/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111019/jack-ma-asiad/ http://allthingsd.com/20111019/jack-ma-asiad/#comments Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:15:55 +0000 John Paczkowski http://allthingsd.com/?p=133866 The last time Jack Ma was onstage at a D event, he spent a lot of time talking about Yahoo. And this time he’s sure to do the same, since he’s publicly announced his interest in buying the troubled Internet giant. But Ma and his Alibaba Group cover an awful lot of ground in China, from e-commerce to recent excursions in search and beyond, so this should be a wide-ranging interview.

10:16 am: Walt takes the stage to introduce Peter Kafka, who will be interviewing Ma for the absent Kara Swisher today.

Peter Kafka: It seems like every time you’re on stage with us, we have to talk about Yahoo. So we may as well get that out of the way right away. We heard from Jerry Yang. What’s the latest? We know that you’ve expressed interest in buying all or part or some of Yahoo over the summer; in the past you’ve been trying to sort of at least get Yahoo out of Alibaba. So where do things stand right now?

Jack Ma: I think we still have not changed our mind, and we keep our strong interest on the Yahoo. The things that we are waiting for the Yahoo board, and especially their independent directors, to tell us what exactly they want to do.

PK: What do you think they want to do?

JM: I don’t know. [laughter] I’m waiting.

PK: And what have you proposed to them?

PK:JM: Well, I think not us, I think a lot of people have already talked to Yahoo for years. And I think we are, we have to know exactly what their — I know they have a lot of options, but you have to take one option first, what they want to do.

PK: Yeah, Jerry Yang said they have a lot of options, a lot of things on the table.

JM: Okay, I did not know that.

PK: They’re going to make one decision.

JM: Yeah, they have to make one decision.

PK: So, in the past you said, “I’d like to extract myself from Yahoo,” and I think you surprised some people this summer at Stanford when you said, “I would like to buy all of Yahoo.” Is that still what you would like to do if you had that option?

JM: Yes.

PK: You’d like to buy the entire company … Alibaba –

JM: Yeah, even though, as I said, if the, their board say … Yahoo, I’m interested. If our piece. We are interested, but just let us know what they want to do. [laughter]

PK: I understand why you’d want to buy back Yahoo’s stake in your company.

JM: Yeah.

PK: Why would you want to own the entirety of Yahoo?

JM: Well, I think Yahoo is so important to us, and we are also very important to Yahoo. And Yahoo is also so important to the industry. And we, you know, we’ve been thinking about that for a long time, we talked to Yahoo for a long time, and of course we know there is something that we can add value to Yahoo.

PK: Why are they important to the industry? Why — and how could you add value?

JM: Well, Yahoo, without Yahoo probably I will not start my Internet business, ’cause Yahoo, when I started business, Yahoo was my idol. And I don’t want my idol to fall down, and it’s so important to us, ’cause we are partners for so many years. And you don’t want to see your partners in trouble. So, if you can do anything to help, just help. If they don’t want the help, then don’t help them.

PK: But you guys have said recently, several times, that really that Yahoo doesn’t add a lot of value to your operations here. So I don’t want to belabor this, but I would assume that the main value to Yahoo would be to sort of get them out of your hair. But if you had to run the U.S. part of the company, and Jerry was on earlier and said the idea is to become the premier digital media company, is that what you would do with the Yahoo U.S. operations, and operations outside of China?

JM: I never tried to say, “Well, we want, I want the team, I want the market to know what exactly the company should do.” The people should know where they want to do, and make this thing come out and happen. Otherwise, this thing will go nowhere.

PK: Well, you said the people, you mean the management?

JM: I mean the management, and the people — I mean, when I say people in the company it’s about my colleagues. We know this is what we believe, if it is our belief, make it happen.

PK: So, if you were in charge of all of Yahoo today or tomorrow, what would you do? It’s your management.

JM: I think Yahoo is a great company, with great assets. And also, I think there’s so many great CEOs in U.S. that can run this business well.

PK: So you would bring in new management?

JM: Yeah. I don’t, I don’t — I think it’s a big challenge for Chinese people to go to the U.S. and run an American company. But we could definitely help.

PK: And you have a shortlist of people you’d like to hire? You want to tell us who you’d put in charge? [laughter]

JM: That’s, that’s too early to discuss about that.

PK: Okay, I tried.

JM: Of course, we will be thinking about that now.

PK: And I think you can answer this pretty quickly, but in the past, it’s been quite obvious that if you were going to buy all of Yahoo, you’d need financing, you’d need partners. And then there was a weird story that came out earlier this week, and it was a translation issue perhaps, but it said, “Jack Ma says ‘I have $20 billion, I can buy all of Yahoo by myself.’”

JM: Yeah.

PK: Am I missing something?

JM: I absolutely don’t have $20 billion. [laughter] But I’d love to, right? I think money’s, finance is not, never a problem. Today the financial market is no good, but the money is there. We’ve been working with Yahoo for years, and trying to buy some back and work something out, so we never think that the financial is a problem. The problem is what they want to do.

PK: Jerry was here, did you talk to him earlier? Did you ask him this yourself [laughter]

JM: No, I did not meet him today, and I just arrive last night for this event and go back.

PK: I’ve got to say, one of the cool things about an event like this is backstage — you can’t see this, but there’s lots of people hovering back. And you just talked to Jack Dorsey, from Square and Twitter, I think that was the first time you guys had met.

JM:: Yeah.

PK: Do you think there’s a business relationship between your company and either Twitter or Square, going forward?

JM: I think there will be a lot of business going on with our company with the U.S. economy — I see when I look at so many American amazing Internet companies. I think there are so many things that we can work together. So many. If, especially when we go to the States, we have to find partners, instead of finding competitors. And when they come to China, they need partners. And we are one of the best partners people can find.

PK: A lot of U.S. companies have come here with mixed records: eBay, sort of a competitor of yours, came, basically left; Google left for different reasons. Why do you think some of the big Internet companies have struggled, the big U.S. Internet companies have struggled in China?

JM: I think any company go to any nation, you need to have this struggling. The very important thing you should have is patience. And instead of looking at your own strategy about the … you should focusing on the customers in the local market. Serve them well, just like any entrepreneur, any business going there. For example, when we start Alibaba, I never thought this thing, and I believed this thing would never succeed within first five years. Takes about at least eight, 10 years. When I start a … I say, “Let’s wait ten years later, not now.” So if you come to China, or any big Internet companies, think about five, 10 years later what’s going to happen, instead of next year, five months later what is going to happen.

PK: You started your first Internet company in 1995, when most people weren’t starting Internet companies in any part of the world, with the exception of a few in the U.S.

JM: Yeah.

PK: Were you looking out five, 10, 15 years ahead then? Or were you just marveling at the fact that you could use Prodigy to dial up to the Internet?

Jack: Well, yeah, I start — You know, people know about Alibaba knew about … Alibaba know about today what we are doing. But the people did not know our China pages and our, the … Web sites, all filled. They only see some good side and they don’t want to see the bad sides. And when they see the bad sides, they forget about the good sides. So, I think it’s a long, when we started, we thought it would, we probably would be successful in three years and fail. And then, we start Alibaba, we know, “Okay, it takes long time.” When we start Alibaba — Taobao, we say, it’s a long time. When started Ali-Paint we know it a long time. So whatever we do today, everything, and I think as the CEO, everything I did, the decision I made, I asked myself, asked a team, “What’s this thing going to happen in five years?” And 10 years? Not in five months. I don’t want to see five months.

PK: And with the pace of change in any part of the world, but especially with the Internet, especially with Asia, where all these things are growing so fast, is it realistic to say, “I’m going to try to predict what the world will look like in five years?”

JM: Absolutely. I think when everybody’s talking about a fast and quick, you should think about slow. When everybody think about slow, you know, we have a long time, let’s move fast. This, this is always the right way to do business. Well, I did that, and now we, and everybody, everybody’s criticize this, and so wait a minute, let’s think about it. Everybody think this is a great, okay, be careful because you may not have the chance.

PK: Counterintuitive thinking, it works for a lot of people. One of, one of the themes that I, Walt brought up with Jerry, and I think he’ll, we’ll bring up throughout the conference, is this notion that a lot of what we’re seeing in China from the technology community, or what we could charitably call imitations of things we’ve seen in the U.S. Most of the stuff here comes from the U.S., and in iterates, to put it politely. First of all, do you agree with that, with that description?

JM: Mmm. No, I don’t really. I think, you know, the na–, I respect intellectual properties, I respect the great ideas, innovation, but these things, if nobody use it, if nobody devel–, if nobody innovate on innovations, that’s a big problem. You know, the IM was AOL first — I think the ICQ first made it, but now … make it even better. Right? And Twitter did a great job, and Weibo in China, also did a great job. And China invented the … but the USA and Western country made it better. The campus, everything, you know. The war is about learning.

PK: So you’re not spending time thinking, “How can I create the most innovative possible company,” you wanted to, that’s not keeping up enough.

Jack: I never think about “How can I make this company most innovative?” only think about how can I make my customer much happier and comfortable and last long. I don’t care whether people call you, “Jack you’re, your innovative company, or internet techno–” We are service company. Our job is using Internet as a tool to serve the customers, instead of, “Oh, we are innovative company.”

PK: And let’s be clear about who your customers are, ’cause it — some people might be confused about it. It’s generally not a consumer, right? You’re generally a B2B play.

JM: Yeah, we started from B2B play, we just focus a small business. My customer, as I said, my belief is my customers always be small business entrepreneurs. ‘Cause I’ve been working as a start-up entrepreneur for 15 years. And I know how tough it is, how difficult it is. Somebody, if somebody got it, help them, it’s not, Jack Ma can’t help them, it’s the Alibaba people useI internet that can help the small business. So, my customer is small business, entrepreneurs, and …

PK: [interposing] Small-business entrepreneurs who want to sell something, you enable that.

JM:: Sell something on the Internet.

PK: Like these shoes.

JM: Oh, yeah, yeah, this the shoe I bought on Taobao, because, oh, some, some lady in the countryside, they are making shoes and selling online, and I think if I buy it for $20-$30 … and they can have a job and they have fun, and I feel very comfortable. I think I’m getting older, love this kind of shoes. It’s very comfortable.

PK: They look comfortable. I might get some for the flight back, I don’t want to have a Kara Swisher incident. [laughter] But you guys just raised prices for some of your merchants, and that inspired a big protest. And you didn’t really back down. You didn’t change your mind. When customers or people who say that they’re customers, tell you they’re unhappy with the way the company is run, and you don’t change your mind, you say, “I’m going to go ahead,” what should we take away from that?

Jack: Yeah, the the past 10, 10 days was the, one of the most painful days for me, in my life. And when I fly back from the States to China to solve the problem, I listened to music, there’s a sunset, the people hurt you most are the people you love most. And I love the … I never thought about that. Alibaba never think about raising, you know, for the, raising the price and collecting more money from the poor SMEs. The purpose for doing that is because we want against the fake products, intellectual properties.

PK: So let’s explain exactly what you did do.

JM: Okay. We have, for Taobao’s side, we have one billion proud listings. And we have over 70 million unique visitors every day, and we are probably the largest e-commerce site, if not in the world, we’re at least in Asia. But there are a lot of fake products, intellectual property issues, and so we got to solve this problem. If we don’t solve the problem, Taobao will never last long. Three years, five years, we’re in trouble, ’cause we have to respect these things. So we said, “If anybody sell these kind of things, if you sell one, we find out, we’ll pay fine for five times.” And take the businesses seriously. And anybody come to Timo, which is focus of big B2C, all this big business –

PK: It’s the equivalent of a mall, an online mall.

JM: It’s a mall. We have 50,000 business selling these things on our site. So we said, “Anybody, if you’re on Timo, no intellectual property issues, no fake products,” all those were serious punished. And this message turned out to be we raised 10 times more fee. Because, thanks to the Internet time, you know, people don’t believe for the, what you want to do, people believe the rumors.

PK: You blaming that on the Internet or just human nature? The answer is human nature. [laughter]

JM: I think human nature plus the Internet [laughter] growth very fast.

PK: We’ll do our best to get things accurate. At least this is being recorded, so people can always check, check back. But you still had a lot of people protesting, and you didn’t back down. You said, “Well, we’ll try to make this more palatable for you, we’ll create funds that will make this easier for some merchants.” But it didn’t cause you to rethink your strategy?

JM: No, I, I’ve side, I announced firmly and clearly that we will never step one back from the intellectual property problems. And, and these fake products, and these is trust problem. So, but, helping small business entrepreneurs, we will do it. And the way, how we communicate, we are reviewing ourselves. So, that is why we invest. The problem, this problem can never be solved by Alibaba alone. This problem can never be solved within three years. It’s a long one, this is why I’m getting, oh, terrible days. But you know, this is why they probably decide to need us.

PK: I think if you buy Yahoo, there’ll probably be more difficult days ahead.

JM: More problems, oh, yeah, oh, yes. [laughs] Oh, yeah.

PK: But you’re okay with that.

JM: But you know, you know, if life is so short, if you really do, can do something, that help others and meanwhile you enjoy it, you know, enjoy. The other side is a pain. It’s your own choice. If you pick it up, go ahead. My friend said, if you pick up the way go to paradise, go ahead. If you pick up the way go to the hell, go ahead. [laughter]

PK: What about a nice middle ground? [laughter]

JM: No, you have two options, you have to pick up one. [laughter]

PK: Back to the U.S. for a minute. You bought a couple companies in the U.S., some of the other big Chinese Internet companies, Ten Cent in particular, have bought several more. Is that something that interests you? Do you want to acquire more companies within the U.S., or are those sort of one-off purchases?

JM: Well, I think we are interested in partnering more, and we are interested in invest — I think U.S. in need more Chinese investment, foreign investment. And they should accept it, because it’s good for USA, it’s good for the others. And I don’t want to come, to go to U.S. or go to Europe and just to go there fighting. We want to go there partnering.

PK: And the reason it’s important for the U.S. to take in Chinese investment? Spell that out for us.

JM: They need jobs. They need innovation from the others. Yeah, they, I think it’s great, U.S. have so many great innovation, like Apple, this and that. They also need a tiny SME innovations, which we can bring.

PK: You don’t think eBay’s going to take care of that on their own?

JM: Well, I think that eBay should take it up themselves, you know, they have great ideas and they, they develop it. Does not mean that this market should be eBay alone. And they come to China, I mean, anybody can do.

PK: So, you sort of own this commerce market in China.

Jack: Well, no, we are contribution.

PK: You dominate it. [laughter]

Jack: Yeah. I help.

PK: It’s a good thing. And the other big Chinese Internet companies all do things that are separate from that, but it seems like you’re starting to rub up against each other, along the side. Baidu is the dominant search engine, you’ve created your own search product. And you said something to the effect of, one of the reasons we’re doing a search engine is we want to sort of make it difficult for the folks at Baidu to sleep at night. Do you think you’ll become more direct competitors over time?

JM: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely, because it’s good for markets, it’s good for industry. It is good for — we are, we’ve been separating Taobao three, three companies, in June, you know, because Taobao’s getting bigger, so I separate it in three. And the other, one of the reason is that I want, that make, running big company like a small company, make us small and the industry will be bigger. If we are big, industry was small. So, separate to three, and I said, well, 10 years later, any small piece of the three pots bigger than the others, let’s separate the three again. So, the competition, I don’t really focus on competition a lot. Competition is just, to me, is a dessert, it is a fun part of the business.

PK: But inevitably, like the bigger you get, and the bigger your people who aren’t competitors but might be, get, that stuff’s going to overlap. I mean, the analogy in the U.S. would be Apple and Google weren’t competing for a long time; now they are. Amazon is, in theory, a separate business from Apple and Google, but there’s a lot of overlap there, on and on and on. Do you think that’s inevitable in China?

JM: Absolutely. This is a market effect. You have to face it, you have to challenge it. And e-commerce is … Taobao is big, but compared to the tomorrow, the future, e-commerce, it is pretty small. It is pretty small. It is just a beginning. And I think it’s not — one thing I feel very different, because not only may, not only China, especially in the U.S., a lot of people that do their business, think first of competition. And I think the first is the customer, how big the customer base. And then think about, when you get tight, let’s find some competitors.

PK: So, don’t go find a market where there’s no competitors, find a market where there are a lot of customers and …

Jack: [interposing] Exactly. When you get bored, find the competitors. [laughter]

PK: [laughs]

Jack: Yeah, it’s true.

PK: You’re not bored yet.

Jack: Well, no. I’m kind of busy, I have to go back to business, you know?

PK: Let me just ask you a couple philosophical questions. Someone asked you a question, I’ve seen it on some previous interview, about donating money to charity and doing philanthropy. And your answer, in short, was, “I’m not that interested in that because what I think, I think the best use for my money is to build companies and to create jobs.” Do you ever think about reconsidering that, and thinking, “Well, maybe I could do something with these resources”?

JM: Well, I never said that I do not donate money to something. I think we probably contribute, I don’t know about the other Internet, Chinese Internet, we give 0.3 percent of our revenues to … to the environment protection.

PK: Right.

JM: Right? And we, I think, you know, I think together with my colleagues, we prob–, I probably spent a lot of money and efforts on doing this thing. Because it’s my private thing, I just don’t want to tell in the public it’s a private thing. I don’t want to say, “Well, I’ve donated money here.” Because for a business, I agree with … had a business, we have to bury our social responsibility into our business model. Instead of, well, “I’m making some money here by cheating the others,” and then donate money. I hate that. The business model itself should be, create value, and be good to the society.

PK: But, very often what a customer wants, you’re trying to serve the customer, may not be good for, say, the environment, right, the two can be–

Jack: And then don’t do it.

PK: –in natural conflict. So, who, what wins, if there’s a conflict between what a customer wants and what the effect might be on the environment?

JM: I think the choice is very clear. If it is hurt the environment, if it is no good for the society, just don’t do it. No matter how much money–

PK: Even if the customer says, “Give me more of that.”

JM: Well–

PK: “Take down that tree, dig up that hole.”

JM: Yeah, exactly, just … did last week, people say, “I want in on these kind of fake products,” intellectual properties. I say, “Well, kill me or put me in the prison, this is my decision.” I have principles.

PK: Is it realistic to have companies self-regulate themselves instead of the government doing it? I mean, we have this debate in the U.S. constantly, we go back and forth. Right now the pendulum is sort of tilting I think towards self-regulation.

JM: Yeah, where, whether there’s a government regulate or yourself, it’s your own belief. If you believe it is right, you don’t need other people to discipline you. And it’s better for the market, you know, company’s a market product. What I believe is that this is something you’re doing this good for the others, just do it. Right? Don’t wait for the government come. And if they can come, sometimes things get messed up.

PK: Another government question. In the earlier interview with Yahoo, Rose said, I think it was Jerry, perhaps, it was Jerry, said, “It’s an open question about whether or not censorship is going to ultimately stifle real entrepreneurial spirit and drive and creativity in China.” And it may be that enough government restriction will make it difficult for entrepreneurs to really succeed on the level we’ve seen in the U.S. and other countries. Do you agree with that?

JM: Well, it depends on which angle you see. I think censorship is, yeah, it’s issue, but it’s not that big issue. Let’s look at the good side of the Internet, let’s look at the good things you can do. This is always my optimistic view. If you focus on one side, for example, censors were so serious you got tied up about that, and we started developing the others. And I think Chinese government is sometime, you know, they are getting, they are getting more and more open. And then in some period, they’re getting close. Which I think it’s very natural for people like me, sometimes very happy, sometimes not happy. You know? Confidence … Tai Chi …

PK: [interposing] Do you think they inevitably, do you think they inevitably grow more open as commerce grows, as the country gets bigger? Or do you think they could still pull back?

JM: Yeah, this is, this is what I’m doing. I think the e-commerce, the commerce and trading, trading can help people understand each other, make full use of the Internet by creating value for the others. And then the more they do it, if you’re accountable, they release. So, but, I think it’s like in the company, when I look at my colleagues, my partners, my assistant. If you look at the bad side of this guy, you can never make things forward. Well, his best side is my, this is why I, they need me. Because Jack Ma’s shut … that’s why Jack Ma needs partners. So I think we try sometimes, you know, censorship, let’s see as a business what’s the opportunity we can do? And then, make them comfortable, things will get better. I hate to criticize people, I mean.

PK: But you will.

Jack: Yeah, sometimes get just annoyed, and I mean, then I criticize myself and then change, you know, this is life.

PK: So we started this interview 25 minutes ago, I asked you about Yahoo, this situation changes a lot — has anything changed in the last 25 minutes? Are you going to buy Yahoo [laughter]

Jack: No.

PK: Okay.

JM: No. I said we are waiting for answers. And there are so many people talking, and talking to us. And we will start to talk to them. Very, in the next few weeks. Because if we don’t do it, it’s no good for all of us.

PK: So if I ask you in a few weeks, I’ll get an answer.

Jack: I wish I could, it’s not on my side, it’s their side.

On to the audience Q&A …

Q Hi, I’m Justin Fung from HSBC. In your China 2.0 interview at Stanford, you mentioned that China’s going to go through many of the same challenges that the U.S. is going to go through in about three years. Can you go into a little bit more detail as to why you feel that’s going to happen in three years? What are the key issues that they’re driving at?

JM: Thank you. I’m not a financial columnist, but I just as a business guy, you have to smell what’s going on in the market. It’s instinct. And I think what’s happening to the U.S. today, and Europe, is going to happen in China, next three, five years. The problem, like of job problems, the problems like the economic structure problems, will all appear. So, the import/export problem, because the Asia — the USA economy and European economy, the China exporting, the problem is getting even worse, it’s getting worse. And the other thing is a domestic demand, we need take actions. And also in China called upgrade. Upgrading you have to pay the price. And I don’t see people are ready to pay the price yet. And these things are losing, and anything three years later, I think the past 30 years, for the first 10-some years, private sectors bump up the China economy. And next 10 years, in the international companies, multinational companies, half to China.

PK: Can you be clear about what you mean by upgrading? Who needs to upgrade? What are they upgrading?

JM: Well, China government it’s called upgrading, you know, and transforming called [Mandarin] upgrade whatever management or upgrade the industry. Upgrade, you have to pay the price. For example, I’m upgrading Taobao against these kind of intellectual properties. I got to pay price, I got 50,000 people demonstrate against me. But that’s the price you have to pay. If you don’t pay, come back to work, get bigger. So, this is the issue we are facing. We have to take the challenges. And I don’t see a lot of people ready to take challenge. They’re ready to talk, but don’t take challenge yet. So, if we don’t take challenge, three years later you will see what’s going on. So that’s my point: Let’s get ready for that, and jobs, as in small business, private sectors, they are going to be facing troubles. And we have to get ready for that. Thank you.

PK: In 2008, in retrospect, it’s easy to say you saw this coming, but you did see that there was going to be the credit collapse.

JM: Yeah.

PK: How are you feeling about the next six months to a year, nationally, internationally?

JM: Well, I don’t see there are any, for China. I’m pretty confidence in the next two years that, well, the problem will come in three, five years.

PK: And can you imagine what that precipitating event will be? What will trigger that problem?

JM: I don’t, I’m not fortune teller, just to say this thing is going to happen. And we got ready for it. If this thing, if we’re ready, that thing does not happen, everybody happy. For example, when we talk about the financial crisis, what’s the early beginning of year 2008, we find something wrong. So, I make the whole economy get ready for that.

PK: What was the signal to you that there was something wrong in 2008?

JM: Import/export is in problems. And people, for the forums, every forum I go, people talking about IPO, people talking about PE, people talking about profit margin, yet nobody talk about the value we created. People start greedy, people — everybody’s talking about how many, you know, times you can go, if you got to raise money and the IPO. So I know something wrong. People change. If everybody change that direction, this angle is in problem.

Q I’d like you, if you could talk about online currencies in China, their importance, and how you see the government attitude towards them as they grow.

JM: Okay. Honestly, I’m not, I may not be right, because few years ago when we talk about the online virtual money in the Alibaba internally, and I’m, I was strongly against it. Because I think if you are doing business in China, better believe IMB is the only currency. And if there anything that could probably get annoyed people or the government, just don’t do it, because there are so many ways you can do it. So, I was against it, and later that thing grows so fast. And I still think that Alibaba should not involve that. So that’s why Alipay the only currency for Alipay is IMB. Which, you know, we accept U.S. dollars, too. [laughter] But virtual money, I worry about that. I don’t — I just don’t want to have, like, 1,010 minutes of coins which I don’t know what I’m going to do. And the bigger that thing is, the government would take action. And they will. Any government will. I don’t know how, but I, I think they will. So, but based on the IMB, U.S. dollar, the pounds, I feel more comfortable on that. So, for example, why we did not do the online gaming? Because when, many years ago when everybody, any company, goes, “Let’s do the online gaming thing,” I know someday the government would take action where every kids are learning how to killing. [laughter] Something’s going to happen. Now it’s peaceful and quiet now, it’s much better. This is, this is, say, this is what I — when either you can make the too big or this become two bigger problems. Somebody got to involve it. So, I don’t know, I cannot answer the question, I just Alibaba does not have the intention of doing that, ’cause I worry about.

Q: Hi there, Richard Lai from Engadget here. Your company recently released Aliyun OS, which is a new mobile operating system. And last month you announced plans to release an English version, and even a tablet version in the near future. Can you talk about what benefits that will bring to the Western market, and even to Alibaba itself?

JM: I think, you know, a lot of companies are talking about cloud computing. And we take it very seriously because we have so much data. Datas from small business, datas from the consumers, and datas from Alipay transactions. And I think three years ago, we met internal, the strategic meeting, I sat. We don’t know how to make from the datas, but I believe datas will be so important to our small business, our consumers, and manufacture base. So, let’s, let’s invest money, then. We’re not sell, because of cloud computing, we are selling softwares; we’re not selling hardwares, we are selling services to these. So, this is our principle. And the, the OS for the, for the mobile phone, I think the next big wave, which we have to face the challenge is mobile Internet. We should make Internet mobilized. And how we can, how we can do that, China have like, I was told 60, 600 million mobile phones. And most of them are feature phones. And one thing struck me why I want to do — when people talk to me, they say, “Jack, we’re going to OS, we’re going to launch an OS.” I was shocked, “What, OS?!”

So complicated, how can we do that. Right? ‘Cause why Alibaba can do it? And these crazy guys working for, for one year, you know, our OS came out. It’s not beautiful, like any babies when they were born, it’s ugly looking. [laughter] But the mom always say, “Beautiful,” right? But takes time to make it beautiful. I said, “Wow, the baby’s there, let’s make this beautiful baby, baby beautiful.” But the thing that make me work on whether we will have the opportunity to do it, or the other company have, the opportunity to do it, China needs an operating system to lower the cost of mobiles. And I read one news, which I was touched, moved and I came back to talk to the CEO of Ali … We pay any price to move this industry up.

PK: You don’t think Google, Apple, people who are in the OS business, already spent a lot of years making that ugly baby prettier? You don’t think they can do this for you?

JM: Let ‘em do, let them do it. They should do it, like on eBay when they have 90 percent market share, I want to do it. The purpose I do it is different from eBay. And I think the market is so big. You know, I tell you the news, why I, the news I made full determination to do it. I read an article in the newspaper, there is a girl, 11 years old, her parents went to the city, as a, you know, as a city worker, and brought her, brought them together. She was 11 years old, the only things stay with her was three cats, seven chicken, in a lonely big house. And she wants to make phone call to her parents, but it’s too expensive, and it’s also so far away from where she live, in a village. So, I say, “Let’s make this mobile thing cheap. Make these girls can call their parents, brothers, at the cheapest prices. Second, when I see my daughter playing the iPad, I think all the girls should have this opportunity. And as whether we’ll make money or not, I don’t care, ’cause Alibaba, you know, we have so much cash, we need to be invested for the future. Let’s do it. So, this is what I believe.

Q: Does this also mean you’re also looking into maybe offering data service, as well?

JM:: Yeah.

Q: So, does that mean you’re looking into maybe entering that market as well?

JM: Yeah, at least if we’re not entering the market, we want promote, we want to encourage more people entering that market, making sure that the total cost of mobile going down, making sure China with the, with the managing factory capability, with innovation, with so many people today telling me, said, “Jack, you know, to make a Internet entrepreneur, this job is so difficult, because you guys are there.”

PK: So if you’re not going to get into wireless yourself, how do you encourage other people to do it and to bring the price down?

JM: Yeah, we are building up the infrastructure as always. We are not making trade our self, we build up a platform, making all the Taobao and Alibaba sellers to do it. We try to promote the industry, to make industry, because see, last six months was amazing, amazingly funny. When we announced we go to the mobile things, suddenly everybody said, “We are being in mobile system.” This is what I want. Let’s get people move with that. Because the mobile Internet is such a huge potential market for next China’s innovation.

Q: Coming back to Yahoo, there’s so much speculation about this future of Yahoo, but something most people are agreed on is that whatever happens to Yahoo, Alibaba is going to be thickly involved in any deals surrounding Yahoo. Do you agree with that analysis?

Q: Can be any deal for Yahoo without you being involved?

JM: Oh. I did not know we’re so important. [laughter] We wish we could, that’d be, that’d be that inference. But definitely, we are the main driving force. And we want to be the main driving force, and we want to do this thing as a partner-like thing.

Q: Okay, one follow-up question is you mentioned your interest in buying the whole of Yahoo. But do you see other outcomes for Yahoo? Do you think perhaps some people have speculated perhaps you’ll be interested in buying back your own stake held by Yahoo? Is that a possible outcome? Do you think that is more likely? Less likely than the sale of the whole of Yahoo?

JM:My answer, first, we are ready. Second, we also have options. And third, we are eagerly waiting for answers. [laughter] And they have to make decision. Today, as this environment, all the beautiful flowers withdraw very quickly. [laughter] And we got to, time is so precious for all of us. It’s not a good, it’s no good for Yahoo. It’s no good for everybody.

PK: So if you can sum up, Jerry Yang, Yahoo, independent directors, please make up your mind. Signed, Jack Ma.

JM: Yes! [laughter]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111019/jack-ma-asiad/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111005/not-so-much-on-a-microsoft-bid-for-yahoo-theyre-crazy-but-not-that-crazy/ http://allthingsd.com/20111005/not-so-much-on-a-microsoft-bid-for-yahoo-theyre-crazy-but-not-that-crazy/#comments Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:59:38 +0000 Kara Swisher http://allthingsd.com/?p=129039

Is this investment-banker-hype week and nobody told me?

It certainly seems so from all the almost ridonkulous rumors about everyone and their mother being “imminently poised” to make a bid for Yahoo.

In fact, the process is only beginning to chug along with the Yahoo board, aided by Allen & Company and now Goldman Sachs.

At this point, it is lots of folks rubbernecking, books being prepared and all the other stuff bankers do to look like they are busy, busy, busy.

Among the most serious players: Silver Lake and a shifting group; and a consortium that includes former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin and Providence Equity Partners.

And, just slightly, News Corp. (which owns this Web site) is considering dipping a very small toe in as part of a larger group.

That has been copiously reported here and elsewhere a badillion times already.

But — and I have been clear on this, as have others — no one is near anything of substance, which has not stopped this really lame game of Clue being pumped up by bankers who should know better.

Yesterday, it was Silver Lake, DST Global and the Alibaba Group in the billiard room with foreign money. Nope, nope, nope. Silver Lake and DST are indeed looking hard and Alibaba is a player here, but there is no grand troika going at this moment.

In fact, Alibaba’s Jack Ma — after declaring he was “very interested” in buying Yahoo — has since backed off.

And today, it’s a thinly sourced and carefully worded report of Microsoft in the basement, interested in bidding with a pile of their own dough.

How can I put this delicately? How about: No.

According to my sources, throughout this entire process Microsoft execs have taken pains to make it clear that they are not going to be among the bidders in any significant manner.

In addition, the company has also been communicating with bidders that — while Microsoft is interested in a stable Yahoo, given their search and advertising partnership — it would not throw in with anyone in the process yet.

And, finally, if a winner eventually emerges, it might — and this is only might — consider making a token investment to help get the deal completed.

Certainly, Microsoft has been and is willing to talk to anyone interested, said sources, given their Yahoo business relationship. But this does not make it a bid of any shape or size. They are not even “considering” it, unless that means watching from a distance.

I suppose in some incredible shift Microsoft could change its mind, but most credible sources I spoke to said that is not happening now.

In fact, after its bruising and failed takeover attempt of Yahoo several years ago, said multiple sources, Microsoft now has the deal it wants with Yahoo.

“Why buy the cow when you can get the search and advertising deal for free,” joked one person close to the situation.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111005/not-so-much-on-a-microsoft-bid-for-yahoo-theyre-crazy-but-not-that-crazy/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20111004/final-asiad-speakers-apples-phil-schiller-and-former-vp-al-gore/ http://allthingsd.com/20111004/final-asiad-speakers-apples-phil-schiller-and-former-vp-al-gore/#comments Wed, 05 Oct 2011 00:15:32 +0000 Kara Swisher http://allthingsd.com/?p=128535

And then there was Schiller and Gore.

That would be Apple’s SVP of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller and former Vice President Al Gore, who round out the stellar list of speakers at our upcoming AsiaD conference.

Taking place from Oct. 19 to 21 in Hong Kong, the lineup is already impressive, with a mix of speakers from China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, as well as Silicon Valley and elsewhere.

The previously announced speakers include: Alibaba Group’s Jack Ma; Google Android head Andy Rubin; Twitter inventor and product guru, as well as Square co-founder and CEO, Jack Dorsey; Nvidia founder and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang; Asus Chairman Jonney Shih; Sony president and second-in-command Kazuo “Kaz” Hirai; Google+ guru Bradley Horowitz; Hollywood big shot Peter Chernin; Huawei’s North American R&D head John Roese; Microsoft’s Windows Phone head Andy Lees; and a panel of Silicon Valley start-up stars — Joyus’ Sukhinder Singh Cassidy, SurveyMonkey’s Dave Goldberg and Airbnb’s Brian Chesky; Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang and Asia head Rose Tsou; LivingSocial’s Tim O’Shaughnessy, along with founders of two of its Asian units, Daniel Shin and Paul Srivorakul; Samsung mobile head Dr. Won-Pyo Hong; HTC CEO Peter Chou, who replaces Chairwoman Cher Wang.

Schiller, who reports to Apple’s CEO Tim Cook (and before that, Steve Jobs) is a member of the executive team of the tech icon, where he has worked for 17 years. He is responsible for a swath of Apple’s outward-facing businesses, including product marketing, developer relations and business marketing.

Today, in fact, he was onstage at Apple’s iPhone event, outlining some of its new product offerings. In addition, Apple just opened its first retail store in Hong Kong.

Gore, who had a memorable interview at the fourth D: All Things Digital conference in 2006, needs little introduction. The former VP and Nobel Peace Prize winner is now chairman of Current TV and also continues as a prominent environmental activist.

Gore is on the board of Apple, while also being a senior adviser to Google, which is a neat trick. At the same time, he is a partner in the famed Silicon Valley venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins, and co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management, a partnership that is focused on sustainable investing.

And, as most people know, he knows a thing or two about the Internet.

Walt Mossberg and I could not think of two better people to add to the lineup we have for AsiaD, which has very few seats left.

See you in China in two weeks!

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20111004/final-asiad-speakers-apples-phil-schiller-and-former-vp-al-gore/feed/ 0